Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Read a Second time, and committed.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Secure Accommodation (Juveniles)

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the current shortfall in the number of places available in local authority secure accommodation for juveniles whom the courts wish to send to such accommodation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Under the present law, the courts have no powers to require that any juvenile should be detained in local authority secure accommodation either before or after conviction

Dr. Jones: Is not it accepted that there is a shortfall of places available in secure units? Why do not the Government give local authorities the funding that they need to provide the places that have been identified as necessary? In Birmingham, it costs over £2,200 a week for each of the eight places that are provided and currently occupied and it is estimated that at least another 16 places are needed in the west midlands. Why do not the Government give that support? I have a letter from the local police who say that, as well as more secure units, they want to see more supervision of young people on bail and more support for offenders' families. If the Government are really committed to tackling crime, why—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has put her question.

Mr. Howard: Local authorities have the powers that they need to provide secure accommodation. If Opposition Members think, as they should, that local authorities

should give greater priority to the provision of secure accommodation, they should make those representations to the local authorities concerned, many of which are now controlled by the Labour party.

Dame Jill Knight: What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend have to ensure that staff in children's homes—even those in non-secure children's homes—keep a reasonable measure of control over the children in their care? Is he aware that some of the children cause absolute misery and mayhem to nearby residents?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has identified a particular problem which needs to be addressed. It is a problem which will be addressed to some extent when we legislate. as I hope to do at the earliest opportunity, to give the courts the power to make orders so that young, persistent offenders can be detained in secure accommodation.

Mr. Blair: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is now two years since the Home Office promised additional secure places for juvenile offenders and not one of those places has been built? Will he also confirm that the revenue funding for such places has not even been agreed? Does he understand that local authorities, the police and local communities do not want to wait another two or three years before those places in secure accommodation and elsewhere are available? They want action now, as it is now that crime is being committed.

Mr. Howard: The particular places to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are in the course of being provided. Why does not he address the question that I raised in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) a few moments ago? Local authorities have the power to provide secure accommodation and there are many examples, such as Leicestershire, where the Labour party has refused to open secure accommodation that was originally provided when those counties were under Conservative control.

Rapists

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to deal with rapists.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Courts have been empowered to impose longer sentences on persons convicted of violent or sexual offences and to require that they should be supervised for longer periods when released. The Prison Service runs programmes for sex offenders aimed at tackling the roots of their behaviour and preventing reoffending.

Mr. Nicholls: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he recalls that when a provision was introduced to enable the prosecution to appeal against over-lenient sentences, it was opposed by both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party? What does my hon. Friend think that the public should conclude about those who talk tough on law and order, but who shy away when they have the opportunity to turn the rhetoric into reality?

Mr. Maclean: Time and again, the Opposition have voted against measures that we have introduced which have proved absolutely essential. Since we introduced those powers, the Attorney-General has referred 16 cases


in which people have been sentenced for rape and 12 of those sentences were increased by the Court of Appeal. Other cases are pending.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern about the bail conditions given to rapists? Is he aware that in parts of Nottinghamshire cases are taking about nine or 10 months to come to court either because of the incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service or because of a lack of funding? In that time, because of weak bail conditions, too many of those accused visit the areas in which the attack has taken place and they often abuse and harass those whom they are alleged to have raped. That is not good enough. The bail conditions must be tightened in such cases. It is the Minister's neglect in controlling the Crown Prosecution Service that is allowing such problems to occur.

Mr. Maclean: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is the fault of the Crown Prosecution Service. I am, of course, aware of the concern about people who commit other crimes on bail, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the provisions of the Bail Act 1976 under which bail can be refused in all cases if the court is satisfied that the person might abscond, reoffend, threaten witnesses or pervert the course of justice. That is what the law says. Judges and courts have the powers to deal effectively with anyone who appears before them and who might reoffend on bail.

Mr. James Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case this week in a court in my area in which Judge Starforth Hill released on bail a person who was being tried for three rapes? He gave the man bail against the advice of the police and the man now resides in southern Ireland. There is no way in which we can get him back. Is that not a travesty of justice?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on that particular case at present. I merely repeat that the Bail Act, if it is enforced properly by the courts—we have circulars designed to draw the law to the attention of magistrates and judges—provides that if the court is satisfied that someone might abscond or reoffend, it does not need to grant bail. In each case, the decision is at the discretion of the courts and judges.

Obscene Publications Acts

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review the provisions of the Obscene Publications Acts.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the working of the Obscene Publications Acts.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We are not reviewing the central provisions of the present law on obscenity, but we are examining ways in which to make existing legislation work effectively. We continue to receive representations on the general subject from hon. Members and others.

Mr. Winterton: A unique twinning, Madam Speaker.
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and with the Prime Minister that the book "Juliette" by the Marquis de Sade, which glorifies child abuse and murder, is "truly horrific"? As the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the

Attorney-General have said that no prosecution is possible because no conviction could be guaranteed, will my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary come to the House as soon as possible to announce an amendment to the Obscene Publications Act 1964, something which is long overdue?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is a very nasty book, but it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether to bring forward a prosecution. The law that my hon. Friend complains of explicitly states that it is the harm that the material can do that is the nature of the offence. I do not believe that there is any form of words that could improve the law to deal with the case.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend take time next Tuesday to watch "The Cook Report", which exposes the evil, secretive and lucrative trade in computer pornography? Will he tell the House what actions he intends to take to review the obsolete test of obscenity and also the Obscene Publications Act 1964, which forces the police to operate against the vile trade with one hand tied behind their backs?

Mr. Lloyd: We are looking carefully and urgently at the subject of computer pornography. The systems that are on sale and that can be exchanged come under the present law. We are also examining whether self-constructed systems come under the law.

Ms Lynne: Does the Minister support the introduction of custodial sentences for the possession of child pornography, because at the moment some people who possess child pornography are given minimal fines?

Mr. Lloyd: The effect of the law in that area is one of the things that we are looking at and is at the top of our list.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister agree that the most pernicious form of pornography in recent years has been that which has been communicated through the telephone service following the Telecommunications Act 1984? Does he welcome the measures that have been proposed by the independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services and Oftel?
Will the Minister also note that the pornographers are putting together a fighting fund which they reckon will total about £1 million to fight the proposals? Will the Government take note of that and, when the matter subsequently reaches a public debate, will they do something about it?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in the matter for a long time. The law is being examined with great care and the hon. Gentleman knows that the codes of practice are currently being revised also.

Mr. Alison: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the test for obscenity—that the material has a tendency to deprave and corrupt—shows that, objectively, there is a fearful latent detriment in pornography? Since the test clearly is not stopping the damage of pornography, will my hon. Friend reconsider the proposition that there is no need to supplement the test with a further and more effective one?

Mr. Lloyd: We have examined the law and there have been a number of private Member's Bills on the matter. My right hon. Friend clearly stated that the test is whether the material will deprave and corrupt, or do actual harm.


That is what the test is all about. It is essentially the same test as we have had since 1868. It was regarded by many people as over-effective for 100 years, but people now say that it is under-effective. What my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members must realise is that jury attitudes have changed. I do not believe that we can compensate for that by changing the wording of the law. We are willing to consider any suggestions for improvement.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that tinkering with the edges of law will not deal with the problem? While we recognise that the matter relates to the moral climate, is not it true that the Government and their advisers are not prepared to tackle the problem?

Mr. Lloyd: The Government are anxious to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman should suggest a better test. The problem, as I have stated twice from the Dispatch Box, is that material that the hon. Gentleman and I and other hon. Members may think of as obviously harmful is often not thought harmful by juries.

Offending on Bail

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding offending on bail; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclean: We receive representations from time to time; we share the concern about offending on bail. We have supported the Bail (Amendment) Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and we have introduced an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to give courts powers to increase sentences for those who offend on bail.

Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that by supporting that Bill, the Government have declared that they intend to deal with bail bandits, a subject which worries many hon. Members? Is not it the case that Conservative Members are convinced that my hon. Friend is endeavouring to deal with the problem, unlike Opposition Members, who have difficulty expressing a united opinion?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend comes straight to the point. We are determined to tackle those who offend while on bail. Bail is a right, but it is also a privilege. We cannot tolerate for much longer those who offend on bail, when there may be no good reason for them to do so. We have already taken measures. We keep the law under constant review. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions of sensible further improvements, I shall look forward to hearing them.

Mr. Madden: What action is the Minister taking on a case that I have twice referred to the Minister of State of a Bradford man who had a disgraceful history of breaching bail conditions, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, was granted home leave and has since absconded? The prison authorities tell me that he would not have been granted home leave if they had been told of the breaches of his bail conditions. What action is being taken to ensure that such a disgraceful incident does not happen again?

Mr. Maclean: We have revised the rules on home leave, but I shall be happy to receive the detailed information of that case from the hon. Gentleman and look into it personally.

Young Offenders

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to review custodial penalties for offenders under the age of 18 years.

Mr. Maclean: The Government keep all penalties under constant review and propose changes when we judge that it is necessary. We have decided to introduce as soon as possible a new secure training order to deal with the hard core of persistent juvenile offenders for whom other court-imposed sanctions have failed.

Mr. Coombs: In welcoming the secure training order, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the peak age for offending in Britain is 16 for boys and for girls? Is he aware that the lives of our constituents are made miserable and inconvenient by the activities of a small minority of people who deserve custodial sentences because of the scale of their activities? Does he agree that the cautioning system in Britain, use of which has increased significantly in the past few years, certainly needs review so that adequate deterrence is provided in cases of burglary and other offences?

Mr. Maclean: It is clear from my discussions with magistrates, judges and the police that there is a need for a secure training order for those 12 to 15-year-olds who have already been through all the community sentencing procedures and are still determined to continue in a life of crime. There is overwhelming evidence of the need for a secure training order, but there is deafening silence from the Opposition on accepting that need.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that if we are to have secure training orders and people in security, we must deal with the need for secure accommodation? The Minister says that there is no evidence that the Opposition are concerned about the problem. Will he acknowledge that in Leeds, where there are 27 secure places, discussions were held two years ago between the authority and his Department about the addition of 10 places? It was agreed that the extra places should be pursued. Yet no money has been produced by the Home Office, as it promised since that date. How can we have more people in secure accommodation when we do not have the places?

Mr. Maclean: It is clear that the Opposition are dodging the point. Secure training orders are specifically designed for 12 to 15-year-olds who will be sent to units directly by the courts. The Opposition know—if they do not, they should—that the courts have no power at present to send to a secure unit directly anyone under the age of 15. Will the Opposition support the demands of magistrates throughout Britain to give them that power? Yes or no?

Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that today in Yorkshire a 17-year-old youth has been convicted for his third joyriding offence in 18 months? Unfortunately, I cannot name him because of the absurd Criminal Justice Act 1991. Suffice it to say that when the arresting officer caught hold of him, the youth said that he was prepared to kill to make good his escape. That was no idle threat


because the young man has killed before. In 1991 he ran into a 57-year-old nurse in my constituency. When will my hon. Friend change the law so that eventually the punishment fits the crime, not the criminal?

Mr.Maclean: Of course, while we are looking at the law on the sentencing of 12 to 15-year-old persistent juvenile offenders, we shall at the same time look at the law for other age groups, to ensure that sentences are proportionate to those in the younger age group. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed when we have concluded our discussions.

Ms Ruddock: Is not the Minister failing to learn from past mistakes? Is he aware of his Department's own evidence that under the old approved school system the vast majority of young offenders had reoffended within five years and that children leaving approved schools had a reoffending rate that was 49 per cent. above that which would otherwise have been expected from their records and characteristics? He should take note of the consensus and demands of my hon. Friends that the present system needs to be better operated. Secure places should be provided by local authorities, where people can be detained close to their families and given support to try to reduce the reoffending rate.

Mr. Maclean: It is clear from what we have said so far that the new secure training orders will be nothing like approved schools or borstals. The Opposition cannot hide much longer behind the myth that we are re-establishing old borstals; we are clearly not. Sooner or later, the Opposition will have to come clean. Will they vote for secure training units or not?
The hon. Lady had better explain that to magistrates and to the police who have arrested 14-year-olds, some of whom have 30 previous convictions. Such youngsters have been through the whole range of community sentences and now the only other sentence for them is a secure training unit. The Opposition cannot ignore the fact that for a small number of young people community sentences are not appropriate.

Police Officers (Injuries)

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been injured in the course of their duty for the last 12 months that figures are available.

Mr. Howard: Information on the number of injuries is not held centrally. In 1992, 14,946 police officers were assaulted on duty in England and Wales.

Mr. Evans: In the light of that response, I thank the Home Secretary for allowing the trials of the extended baton and telescopic baton throughout the country. Unfortunately Lancashire, where I live, is not an area where the trials are taking place. I have figures that show that in 1991 the number of police assaulted on duty was 439; last year, it was 466. That is an appalling figure. Once the trials have been completed, if they are as successful as I believe they will be, will the Home Secretary widely extend the issue of extended batons and telescopic batons and ensure that the police have the tools to do their duty of protecting the public against the criminal?

Mr. Howard: I have made it clear that I am determined to ensure that the police have the equipment they need to protect themselves from the attacks and assaults to which they are increasingly subjected. I saw on Monday, in Poole in Dorset, a demonstration of the Arnold baton. I share my hon. Friend's hope that the evaluation that I have authorised will soon be successfully concluded, so that the batons that are currently being tested can be used more widely across the country and give the police the protection that they need.

Mr. Alton: Does the Home Secretary recall that six months ago in my constituency, WPC Lesley Harrison was viciously attacked? Does he agree that the bravery shown by policewomen and policemen deserves our admiration and practical support? Given that more than 20,000 police officers came to Wembley this week and that in areas of difficult policing there is grave disquiet about the effects of the Sheehy report, will the Home Secretary take seriously their concern that the number of police officers will be reduced as a result of the report, leaving many communities under-policed?

Mr. Howard: Of course, I understand and am aware of the concern that has been expressed. I have made it clear that I intend to consult the police and not confront them on the question of change; but change is necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look again at the report. He will see that, far from reducing the number of police officers available for policing duties, the object of the report is to increase the number of police constables on our streets.

Mr. Shersby: In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's information about the number of police officers injured, will he assure the House that in the coming weeks he will work closely with the police staff associations to reach agreement on proposals for reform, which both they and he desire?

Mr. Howard: I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have every intention of engaging in a constructive dialogue with the police over the next few weeks. The consultation period will not expire until the end of September; I have made it clear that I will listen very carefully to the views of the police and others, and take them into account before reaching any final decisions.

Mr. Stevenson: Are not the police under tremendous pressure as a result of the appalling statistics revealed by the Home Secretary? The Sheehy report has led to a complete disintegration of morale, and the proposition that there must be a link between performance and reward has not helped. Will the Home Secretary now repudiate that statement and give the police a clear assurance that the basis of market testing in the Sheehy report is not acceptable to the Government?

Mr. Howard: No. I will not prejudge the outcome of the consultation in any way. The Sheehy report was designed to strengthen the links between responsibilities and rewards; that strikes me as a thoroughly worthy objective. The report sets out one way of achieving it, but I will take into account any other suggestions. I intend the consultation period, which is currently under way, to result in fruitful and constructive dialogue with the police and all others with an interest in these matters.

Asylum (Fraudulent Applications)

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in preventing fraudulent applications for asylum.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): New procedures designed to deter bogus asylum applications were introduced in November 1991. Since then, the number of new asylum applications has nearly halved. The new Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act will also help significantly.

Mr. Shaw: Conservative Members welcome the new asylum legislation. Will my hon. Friend join me in praising Dover immigration service for yesterday's highly successful raid on illegal visitors to this country? Will he confirm that one way of reducing the incidence of social security fraud would be to reduce the number of bogus asylum seekers?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that a number of bogus asylum seekers have been involved in social security fraud. There have already been 26 successful prosecutions, and a number of other cases are being investigated. One case involved a family of four from Zaire who had submitted more than 50 applications for income support and had been given 50 allocations of council housing. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the immigration service on yesterday's successful operations near Ashford.

Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree that reducing the time allowed for certain appeals against refusal of asylum to 48 hours is not only unfair and unjust, but a contravention of natural justice, resulting in judicial reviews, which in turn lead to yet more delay? When do the Government expect to meet their own pathetic target—set last November—of providing a safe haven for no more than 1,000 Bosnians? Or does the Minister consider such people, whom we see nightly on our television screens, to be nothing more than fraudulent claimants?

Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as he has been told time and again, the selection of ex-detainees and other vulnerable people in Bosnia is a matter for the experts on the ground—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. After the weeks and months that he has spent debating asylum during the current Session of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman really should have learnt that the 48-hour rule applies to those who have made manifestly unfounded applications and have been detained at ports. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that by allowing such people to prolong their stay he would be delaying the consideration of genuine refugee cases in which people suffer genuine traumas.

Citizenship

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted British citizenship in (a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Charles Wardle: In 1974 and 1979 respectively, 69,657 and 29,500 people were granted citizenship of the United Kingdom. In 1992, 42,241 people were granted

British citizenship, excluding the number granted that status under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.

Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show that Conservative Governments operate firm and fair controls on immigration? Is it not the case that Opposition parties would abolish some of those controls, which at present reduce the flow of people coming into this country and ensure better race relations?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members have consistently opposed our legislative proposals and the Asylum Bill, which is now the Asylum Act. The Government will maintain their firm but fair immigration controls on non-EC nationals, and in so doing underpin good race relations in this country.

Young Offenders

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals he has to deal with persistent young offenders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: I intend to bring legislative proposals before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. May I also—this may surprise him—welcome the initiatives that he has taken so far, particularly on behalf of the residents of the Saffron Lane estate in my constituency, who have been subjected to a great deal of criminal behaviour and hooliganism in the past few months? Does it cross his mind that a contributory factor to that criminal behaviour may well be the political thrust of the Government's policies over the past 14 years, which have emphasised selfishness and greed as opposed to collective action and responsibility?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first words that he uttered, but I must tell him that the rest of his contribution was absolute nonsense from beginning to end. What we must never do is obscure the difference between right and wrong. That difference is well understood by the vast majority of people in this country. Making such absurd accusations is an affront to ordinary, decent, law-abiding people in all walks of life throughout the country.

Mr. Rowe: I remind my right hon. Friend that it is about 25 years since Lord Kilbrandon in Scotland made a constructive distinction between the principles governing the way in which the commission of a crime is regarded and the punishment or treatment that is required after that has been done. Will he therefore look again at the whole concept in England of the age of criminal responsibility, because many of my constituents find it quite intolerable that there should be an automatic assumption that some hooligans and young children are too young to be scooped up by the law?

Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend is well aware, we propose to take measures as soon as parliamentary time permits to enable persistent young offenders to be detained in secure accommodation and to receive the education and training which I hope will lead to a permanent change in their habits of behaviour.

Mr. Purchase: I, too, welcome the measures being taken, because many people in Wolverhampton are tormented by the level of youth crime, but it is nonsense for the Home Secretary to believe that Opposition Members do not wish to see the difference between right and wrong. The atomisation of society by him, his party and his leader, and the belief that there is no such thing as society, has caused the uprising in young crime. It is a disgrace. Measures need to be—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman. Does the Secretary of State wish to reply?

Mr. Howard: It is utterly disgraceful that week after week Opposition Members get up and protest against crime when they voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and they continue to vote against the prevention of terrorism Act every time it comes before the House.

Special Constables

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of special constables.

Mr. Howard: Special constables play a valuable role in supplementing regular officers and strengthening the partnership between the police and the public. I have recently announced a new target of 30,000 special constables.

Mr. Garnier: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. The chief constable of Leicestershire is making intelligent use of special constables and, as a result of the additional target that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced, will make even better use of them. May I commend to him proposals for parish constables, which will increase the partnership between the public and the police so that villages in rural areas can feel safer? May I also commend the proposals of the high sheriff of Leicestershire, Mr. Robin Murray-Philipson, for a Leicestershire crime beat scheme bringing young people together with the police—

Madam Speaker: Order. Question Time is becoming a debating period. Members are asked to put questions to Ministers, not constituency cases. Has the hon. Member finished his question?

Mr. Garnier: I was asking the Home Secretary to commend the high sheriff's Leicestershire crime beat scheme, which brings young people together with the police.

Mr. Howard: I will certainly look at the high sheriff's proposal with much interest. I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend expressed, in particular for the possible introduction of parish constables throughout rural areas. We have payed all too little attention to rural crime, which requires determined and effective action. I hope that parish constables will be able to play a part in dealing with it.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not likely that the target set by the Home Secretary will not be reached due to low morale among the regular police force following the Sheehy

proposals? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think it outrageous that he is proposing payment by results, short-term contracts and sacking policemen when they represent the thin blue line resisting the rising tide of Tory crime?

Mr. Howard: It is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman was unable keep a straight face as he asked that question.

Mr. Stephen: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on special constables, but does he accept that the majority of crime in this country is committed by the same small group of people in each police division, who are doing it again and again? Does he accept that we have to focus on those people and keep them locked away for a long time so that they physically cannot burgle our constituents' houses, steal their cars and rape their daughters.

Mr. Howard: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I congratulate him on the measures that he has taken to give the prosecution powers to appeal against bail orders when they are inappropriate. I will always listen to the point of view that he represents.

Sheehy Report

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions will take place with the police before any of the Sheehy recommendations are implemented.

Mr. Howard: I announced on 30 June that full consultation would take place on Sir Patrick Sheehy's report. As part of the process, written comments on the report have been invited by the end of September. Before reaching my decisions, I intend to take full account of the views of the police and of others with an interest in these matters.

Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Secretary of State has to say, but he must be aware of the massive opposition to the Sheehy report among all ranks of the police force, based on experience that payment by results and short-term contracts are a recipe for disaster in the force. Does he therefore agree that the way forward is to shelve the Sheehy report and to concentrate on developing a community police force based on a partnership between local authorities and the police?

Mr. Howard: I am aware—it is a point of view that I have heard expressed by police officers up and down the country—that there is a widely recognised need for change. During the consultation period on Sir Patrick Sheehy's report, I propose to explore ways in which we can achieve lasting and beneficial change in the police service for the benefit of the police and of everyone who lives in this country.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for every 100 recorded crimes only four alleged offenders are brought to court? Since it is the job of the police to bring offenders to court, surely it would be a dereliction of duty if the Government were not considering ways to make the police force more effective and efficient.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who has identified the reason behind the various


proposals that we are considering. The police have been operating within an out-of-date framework and we must bring it up to date in a sensible way, after consulting and entering into constructive dialogue with them. That is exactly what I propose to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is it not a fact that the Government's position on the social chapter is totally at odds with the views and real interests of the British people? If the Prime Minister loses the vote tonight, will he do the honourable thing: resign, go to the country and let the people decide?

The Prime Minister: That was a brave stab in the dark at the beginning of Question Time. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about the social chapter. Perhaps I may quote to him what the president of the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said of the social chapter that, if it were enacted, it
would result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment".
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to see that in his constituency or any other.

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures released yesterday, which show that retail sales are now at a record high level, are good news for British high streets and further evidence that our economy is recovering and that prosperity and confidence are being restored?

The Prime Minister: I believe that it is good news for everyone, not just retailers. Retail sales were up 1¼ per cent. in June, up yet again to another record level. and have been on an upward trend for more than a year. They follow a run of good economic figures and are further compelling evidence of the fact that we are coming out of recession into recovery, with sharply brighter prospects than many imagined some weeks ago.

Mr. John Smith: Following the collapse of Astra Training Services less than three years after the privatisation of the skill centre network, what do the Government intend to do to clear up the shambles that privatisation has caused to skill training?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wholly wrong about the position of skill training in this country and about privatisation. One of the matters that the President of the French Republic

will wish to discuss with me next Monday is the success of our privatisation programme, as there are plans to introduce a similar programme in France.

Mr. Smith: Bearing in mind that Group 4 recently delivered a prisoner to a museum instead of a court, does the Prime Minister think that it might be time to review the mania for privatisation?

The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like the Government to own everything, control everything and determine everything, but we believe in private enterprise, private ownership and privatisation, which has served this country well. Although the British Labour party does not like it, countries all around the world are following the privatisation trail blazed by the Conservative party in the 1980s.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government today face two problems—first, the budget deficit and, secondly, over-regulation, much of which comes from Europe and which is destroying many of our small businesses? Will he make an announcement that will help both those problems and announce a reduction of 10 per cent. in the number of inspectors, which would not only save money, but would show that the Government are serious in reducing the burden of regulation on business?

The Prime Minister: I do not have an announcement to make of precisely the sort urged on me by my hon. Friend, but we are looking at regulation—domestic regulation, European regulation and the enforcement of regulation in this country—in order to reduce the burdens on businesses, both large and small. Regulation has got out of any reasonable context, there is a need for action, and we propose to take it.

Mr. Ashdown: Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to allow the city of Sarajevo to fall to the Serbs?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of what I have said to the House on a number of occasions. He may be an enthusiast for putting British troops in the middle of Bosnia; I am not.

Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's survey by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Lloyd's bank commercial service review, which show that in 180,000 firms throughout the country confidence and orders are improving, output is up and investment is being generated? Is that not a massive vote of confidence in Her Majesty's Government's economic policies?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen that survey and I agree that its message is very encouraging. I am delighted that the good news seems to be shared by both service and manufacturing industries. They have gone to great efforts to shake off the problems of recession. It is now clear that economic recovery is under way—there has been no help from the Labour party, but recovery is nevertheless under way.

Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Byers: Can the Prime Minister tell the House of any occasion on which a Government have ratified an international treaty against the wishes of the House of Commons? Does he agree that a Government adopting such a course of action would deservedly lose the confidence not just of the House but of the whole country, and would not such a Government rightly stand condemned for acting as an elected dictatorship?

The Prime Minister: On the understanding that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contemporary treaty, may I say that the Act carrying that treaty into law has been passed with massive majorities on Second and Third Readings, both here and in the House of Lords.

Mr. Spring: When my right hon. Friend meets the French Prime Minister on Monday, will he congratulate him on the launch of the French privatisation programme? Will he assure him that privatised companies are better companies once the dead hand of state control has been removed?

The Prime Minister: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view, which is increasingly shared by companies, countries and Governments in every part of the world.

Ms Short: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that an all-party group of which I was a member went to visit the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters recently and were told that preparations are being made for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution on safe areas, which only requires 8,000 troops and changes in the rules of engagement? That has not been done and Sarajevo will fall. Has not the Prime Minister allowed that to happen?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, we have had a substantial troop presence in Bosnia for some time. A large number of other countries said in the past that they may be prepared also to put troops into Bosnia. We have made our contribution. A large number of other countries were signatories to that particular Security Council resolution. I think that it is right for them also to make their contribution to the collective carrying out of that resolution.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the social chapter issue is a red herring and that if we sign up to Maastricht the European Court will have the power to impose the conditions on us, whether we vote in this House for them or not, and that therefore those people who do not want the social chapter conditions should vote tonight to try to defeat the ratification of the Maastricht treaty?

The Prime Minister: This is one of those rare occasions when I am unable to share a view with my hon. Friend. I believe that she is entirely wrong and I hope that she will reconsider her position before 10 o'clock. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Save that for later.

Mr. Patchett: Given that the Prime Minister has informed us of his official engagements for today, can he inform the House of his plans for tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to tomorrow immensely.

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: My right hon. Friend will have seen yesterday's trade figures, which show that our exports to non EC countries have improved once again and are hitting record levels, and that our trade gap has narrowed for the fourth consecutive month. Are not those figures the clearest possible evidence of the underlying strength of British industry and of the rapidly improving strength of the British economy?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is right, both on the specifics of exports and on the general point. [Interruption.] Exports to non-Community countries were up 15 per cent. last year. [Interruption.] That is a real credit to British industry.[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down now.

The Prime Minister: That is a real credit to British industry. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House is using up valuable time. Members are waiting to put important questions to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to see the support for British exporters. British industry is becoming more competitive and I think that British industry can take great credit for it.

Mr. Barron: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he believes what he says about the social chapter? What do he and his Government believe will happen to this country if we endorse the social chapter? Does he believe that the Governments of the 11 other member states are mad?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I would put it in precisely that way myself. What I can do is to repeat what the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said about the impact of the social chapter. In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, it said that it would
result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment." 
That is the view of every CBI employer group across Europe.

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dame Jill Knights: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest chamber of commerce and industry in the country is in my constituency, which is the centre of a vital industrial area, and that the opinion of the entire west


midlands industrial community is that we must stick to the principles that he negotiated at Maastricht and assure the industrial sector that we will not have the social chapter?

The Prime Minister: I think that the business men in my hon. Friend's constituency share the views of business men

right across the country about the social chapter. They know that it would be a serious mistake, that it would add to costs, that it would cost jobs and wreck our competitiveness. It is not a chapter that is of any use to the British at present or in the future and it should not be part of British law.

Business of the House

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1993 (CM 2270).
WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be—a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 21 OCTOBER—Proceedings on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on Northern Ireland issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be delivering his Budget statement—the first unified Budget statement, setting out the Government's tax and spending proposals together—on Tuesday 30 November.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his answer, and in particular for giving notice of the date of the Budget.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that he was pressed last week, I think by members of all parties, for a statement to be made on assisted area status before the House rises for the summer recess. I am sure that he has not forgotten, and I hope that he has ensured that his colleagues have not forgotten, either.
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the very strong rumours that it has already been decided that the Local Government Commission may not proceed with a structural review of further tranches of local authorities once it has completed the first tranche on which it is presently engaged. Does he recognise that it would be extremely serious if Ministers encouraged the commission to take such a step, or if Ministers decided that the commission should take such a step, especially because, as I understand it, the timetable for the review of local authority ward boundaries, which are the basic building blocks of our democracy throughout local government and parliamentary and Euro-constituencies, would be reviewed only following the tranches which are already being dealt with on a structural basis?
It could mean that only Labour areas would have their structure reviewed, that only Labour areas in the first tranche would have their basic ward boundaries reviewed. Having had experience of the way in which the Government have blatantly gerrymandered local government boundaries in Wales and Scotland, none of my hon. Friends can be filled with confidence that it would be a sound way of dealing with the issue.
I therefore hope that the Leader of the House recognises that it is absolutely essential that we have a statement before the House rises if the Government have made such a decision, and that it would be an outrage if such a decision waited until the parliamentary recess.
We are pleased that the Leader of the House has given us the date of the unified Budget, but I remind him of the strong concern that we have repeatedly expressed about the failure to schedule a proper public expenditure debate this year. Members of all parties will want to ensure that, whatever procedures are adopted for debating the unified Budget and consequent economic measures, no time is lost to the House for a debate on economic issues as a whole.

Mr. Newton: In answer to the first of the right hon. Lady's three questions, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry is well aware of the need to make a statement on the assisted area map. I believe that he assured the House yesterday that he expects to make a statement before the recess.
Secondly, I assure the right hon. Lady that there is no question of abandoning the local government review process. My right hon. Friend is considering ways of improving the review procedure in the light of the work of the Local Government Commission so far. The objective remains the same, to secure an effective local government structure responsive to local needs, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend neither intends nor expects to do what the right hon. Lady, with uncharacteristic acerbity, described as gerrymandering, of which I have seen no suggestion. I shall bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the request for a statement.
Thirdly, I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for welcoming my announcement about the unified Budget, which, although it was no more than a confirmation of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee yesterday, was evidently helpful to the House. I note what the right hon. Lady said about timings. She will know that the Procedure Committee expects to make recommendations, and obviously we shall consider those with great care.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the fact that a great European city and a recognised independent nation are on the verge of extinction, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the Hosue tomorrow on what Her Majesty's Government intend to do to ensure that United Nations resolutions are properly imposed?

Mr. Newton: Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's persistent interest in such matters, which does him great credit, but I cannot immediately promise him the statement that he seeks. However, I can point out to him that you, Madam Speaker, have said that no less than three hours will be available to debate the situation in the former Yugoslavia during the Consolidated Fund debates next Monday.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House tell us what changes would be made to the business of the House in the first week after the recess if the Government lost the second vote, or indeed both votes, at the end of the debate on the motion tonight? As, despite the request yesterday by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, the Prime Minister has refused to reveal what legal advice has been given to the Government, and has also refused to tell the House what the Government believe the legal requirements on them are, will the Leader of the House, at least,


practise open government and tell us what the parliamentary options are, both before we go on holiday and when we come back?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be anticipating the debate that we are about to have. I could do no more than repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said both last Tuesday and last Thursday, which I thought was absolutely clear.

Sir Peter Emery: May I remind my right hon. Friend, in the kindliest terms that I can summon, that it is now over a year since the Jopling Committee reported? It is perhaps understandable that while we were debating Maastricht that subject could not be considered, but if it is still impossible for the Government to make recommendations, would it not be possible for the Committee's recommendations to be put to the House so that, for the benefit both of the Government and of the Opposition hon. Members could express their views on how much of the report should be acted upon, and in what way?

Mr. Newton: In my experience, there is no one more capable of being kindly than my right hon. Friend. and I am grateful for the way in which he put his question. He will know that I have been having further discussions with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I cannot now pre-empt the outcome of that further consideration, but I note what my right hon. Friend has said, which is in effect a request for a debate soon after we return from the recess.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I endorse the request by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for a statement on the situation in Bosnia.
If the Leader of the House cannot give us a date on which the House will be permitted to debate the report of the royal commission on criminal justice, can he at least give us an undertaking that we shall be permitted to debate that report, as the rest of the nation has already done?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South about the position in former Yugoslavia, except to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. too, to the debate due to take place on Monday.
With regard to the royal commission, as I have said before on such occasions, the right course is for the Government to consider the report and to decide how to proceed. Obviously, that must include consideration of a possible debate.

Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): Will my right hon. Friend give us an idea of when we will debate the Sheehy report? May I have an assurance that it will be fully debated before any action is taken? It is essential to put that message across to the police forces of this country because some of them have the idea that we are going to implement the report lock, stock and barrel, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Newton: The answer to that is very much the same as it was to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). The royal commission report and the Sheehy report are not reports by the Government or conclusions of the Government. They are reports to the Government which the Government can, should and will carefully consider.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: May we have an assurance that the House will be recalled if the situation in the former Yugoslavia deteriorates to the extent that an internationally recognised country is finally erased with the immense suffering that that will entail for the Muslims, particularly in view of the fact that the Government have consistently misrepresented the view of the military both in Britain and at NATO about the feasibility of effective action in that country?

Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand when I say that I would not accept his suggestion that my right hon. Friends have made persistent misrepresentations of the kind he suggests—

Mr. Faulds: It happens to be true.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes that judgment; I do not accept it. It seems to me that that is the kind of point that the hon. Gentleman might seek to develop in the debate to which I have already referred twice.

Sir James Kilfedder: I know that the Government are sympathetic to the idea put forward by Unionist Northern Ireland Members of Parliament about the creation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that important matter in the near future?

Mr. Newton: Not in the first two days of next week.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House had a moment to reflect on the worrying and delicate issues encapsulated in early-day motion 2352?
[That this House, noting recent publicity about Stella Rimington, Director General of the Security Service, recalls her central role in operations against the miners during and after the coal strike of 1984–85, in particular, her deployment of agents provacateurs within the National Union of Mineworkers, including Roger Windsor, Chief Executive Officer of the NUM 1983 to 1989, an agent of MI5 under Mrs. Rimington, sent in to the NUM to destabilise and sabotage the Union at its most critical juncture; notes that in 1984 he made contact with Libyan Officials through Altaf Abasi and staged a televised meeting with Colonel Gaddafi, causing immense damage to the striking miners; that Windsor's actions led to serious and expensive internal disputes, notably a £100,000 libel damages settlement as a result of a letter Windsor forged in the name of David Prendergast of the U.D.M.; further notes that in March 1990, under Stella Rimington's guidance, Windsor was the sole witness, paid £80,000 for his testimony by Robert Maxwell, behind allegations of corruption against the NUM leadership, published in the Daily Mirror, later proved to be entirely untrue; and considers that notwithstanding recent cosmetic changes to its image, the Security Service, including Mrs. Rimington, has been responsible for the subversion of democratic liberties in Britain and should be brought to account.]
Since the Government have insisted on making Mrs. Rimington so high-profile, may we have an independent inquiry into what the lady's role was during the miners' strike?

Mr. Newton: I sometimes think that that kind of question is quite a good illustration of the no-win position in which my right hon. Friends find themselves. As there is greater openness about those services, we are now


accused of having a high profile on the matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the director-general of the Security Service is responsible to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's question to his attention.

Sir Michael Grylls: As the Secretary of State for Transport will announce this afternoon that the Government intend to go ahead with the effective doubling of the M25 in parts of Surrey through my constituency and the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) which will have catastrophic and devastating effects on hundreds of thousands of homes, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the matter as soon as we return from the summer recess so that the House can consider the plan in detail because we believe that it has been considered only superficially?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but I can equally clearly make no promise at this stage.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Government's "taking stock" proposals promised many more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee? However, over the past two weeks, when we would usually have half a dozen or so such meetings, we have had none. Does that not make a laughing stock of taking stock, or is the Secretary of State for Scotland in a huff because he was caught out attempting to gerrymander Scottish local government?

Mr. Newton: We have already had this rather silly point about gerrymandering made once today. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Scottish Grand Committee, he—perhaps above all the hon. Gentleman—will know very well that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is at this very moment seeking to advance the detailed consideration of the follow-up to his stocktaking proposals.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware, many representatives of the arts and sport are anxious to have the National Lottery etc. Bill on the statute book. The Third Reading debate in the other place will take place tomorrow. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if amendments are made in the other place, there will be time to consider them as messages from the House of Lords on Monday and Tuesday of next week so that we can have the Bill on the statute book?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend correctly decribes what will take place tomorrow in the House of Lords in respect of that Bill. I cannot give him precisely the assurance that he seeks, but I have no reason to suppose that the Bill that he is anxious to have in effect will be seriously delayed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the British people do not want a continuation of the fiddling around with local boundaries and reviews of that nature? The whole thing should be scrapped, and the Government should concentrate on providing jobs for people in the shire counties and elsewhere, including Scotland. What is needed in

Derbyshire, where not one deep mine remains, is assisted area status in order to provide jobs in the area. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman announce that a statement about assisted areas will be made, drop the local government reviews, and stop fiddling the boundaries and gerrymandering on behalf of the Tory party?

Mr. Newton: There seems to be some slight tension between the hon. Gentleman's request in relation to the reviews and that of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Leaving that matter aside, I see no conflict between the two points. We shall seek to advance the local government review and make the statement that I have already said will be made on assisted area status.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Opposition to debate employment opportunities on the first Tuesday after the recess so that I can point out what a tragedy it is that hundreds of jobs are to be lost in Dundee as a result of closure of the Timex factory? Following the Ford fiasco of a few years ago, does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsible trade unionists and Labour Members involved should be thoroughly ashamed of their job-destroying tactics?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a point on which I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will wish to reflect. In that connection, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the subject for the Supply day debate on Wednesday 20 October has still to be announced. My hon. Friend's suggestion might be considered.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Leader of the House recall that, last week, he announced that we would debate London affairs on Friday 23 July and that, virtually as soon as it was announced, the debate was cancelled? Why was that decision taken? When can we have the London debate that he has been promising us for so long? Among other things, we could discuss bus deregulation, which was proclaimed by the Transport Select Committee as a leap in the dark, and the very interesting proposition that was put forward by the Secretary of State for the Environment about having an elected mayor for London. I would like to debate that issue because I have an ideal candidate in mind.

Mr. Newton: I see that the list of debates on the Consolidated Fund includes at least one debate in which points about transport in London might be in order. It might be reached at a rather inconvenient hour, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's energy and assiduous attention to duty will keep him in the Chamber.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon after the recess or even sooner to debate the recent Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on the greatly expanded role of the United Nations in peacekeeping and the major implications for this country's policy on that matter?

Mr. Newton: There is no doubt that that is a serious and important subject. The Government will carefully study the report that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. I will of course keep in mind his request for a debate, but I do not think that I can make a promise at the moment.

Mr. Peter Hardy: It is expected that, during the next few weeks, the Government will publish their proposals on changes in mine safety regulations. In view of the assurance that was given to the House by the President of the Board of Trade and echoed by other Ministers that the Government would take no action which would threaten the splendid safety record of our mining industry, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an adequate opportunity very soon after the recess to consider those proposals?

Mr. Newton: I will bear that in mind, and will also immediately draw the question to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As, following the unilateral decision of the European Commissioner Mr. Van Miert to reduce the percentage eligible for assisted area status, Her Majesty's Government have been obliged to submit a second list excluding five areas of Britain, including Southend-on-Sea, do the Government not think that it would be wise to have a debate when we return on the dangers of ceding more authoritarian power to Brussels bureaucrats, who are not answerable to anybody?

Mr. Newton: I think we have here an extremely ingenious attempt to pre-empt both the statement on assisted area status and the debate this afternoon. I will leave my hon. Friend to pursue those points on one or other of those occasions.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Leader of the House reflect on early-day motion 2364, in which it is stated that the chairman of the Northumbrian water authority has increased his salary by 18 per cent. over two years and been given a perk that will net him £160,000?
[That this House notes with concern the pay rises and perks given to the company bosses of Northumbrian Water Group; notes that the Chairman received salary and pension benefits of £102,000, an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year, the Director and Chairman-designate received £120,000 in salary, bonus, pension and other benefits and that he exercised his option to buy 58,475 ordinary shares in Northumbrian Water Group at a discount of £2·72p on the market value of each share, netting him a profit of £159,052 in addition to his salary and perks at a time when customers are struggling to pay a 9 per cent. increase on top of a 10·3 per cent. increase in water and sewerage charges last year; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that such blatant profiteering and exploitation of Northumbrian Water Group customers ceases forthwith.]
Is this not a disgrace, when the Government are asking the working people of the country to accept a 1·5 per cent. increase in wages? Where is the fairness in that in this society?

Mr. Newton: It is, of course, the case that pay in the private sector is a matter for companies and their shareholders. But it is very much the Government's view that they should follow the lead that the Government have set for the public sector and exercise restraint in agreeing salaries for directors and senior management.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement on assisted area status will fully reflect the seven discussions that I have had in recent months with Ministers at the Department of Trade and

Industry, and that Dover and Deal will receive favourable treatment despite the attempts by the Labour party to sabotage it?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's representations, which will have been delivered with vigour on behalf of his constituents, will have left their mark on my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Greville Janner: As the school holidays have begun, will the Minister be kind enough to assure the House that there will be an early debate on the safety of children in playgrounds? As so many playgrounds in so many parts of the country, including the city of Leicester, are dangerous and disgraceful, will he at least draw this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for whatever Department takes responsibility and ask for, at the very least, a statement in the House on this matter?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly do what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, but I presume that he has also brought this matter to the attention of the various local authorities in Leicester, which would seem to have the immediate responsibility.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend seen from the Order Paper that statutory instrument 1626, which is designed to introduce regulations for sheep and suckler cow premium quotas, has been prayed against by a number of hon. Members? Is he aware that this regulation may provide for the transfer of quota from one farm to another with no compensation payable to the landlord? This is causing great concern among landowners, who see the value of their property depleted, and among tenants, who see landowners very reluctant to bring forward farms to let.
I appreciate that we cannot have a debate before the House rises, but may we have an undertaking from my right hon. Friend that, as soon as the House comes back, there will be a debate, either in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, to remove the anxiety?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend any undertaking beyond saying that further consideration will be given to the point that he has raised. I must tell him, however, that, as I suspect he probably knows, the Government have used fully the discretion available within the regulations to include measures to safeguard the position of landlords. They do not have the power to introduce a scheme whereby tenants would compensate landlords for losses on land values resulting from the introduction and allocation of quotas.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the Leader of the House prepared to arrange a debate on two early-day motions, Nos. 2369 and 2370?
[That this House notes the grave allegations in Yorkshire Television's exhaustively researched investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, in which 33 people lost their lives in 1974, and notes in particular that the Garda Siochana rapidly discovered the names of eight suspects (based on eyewitness identification) all of whom were members of the paramilitary loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force Mid-Ulster Brigade based in Portadown, that 12 further suspects were identified based on intelligence reports (four of whom were former or serving members of the Ulster Defence Regiment), that all this information was passed to


the Royal Ulster Constabulary where two Special Branch officers investigated and confirmed the Garda list of suspects but were never allowed to interview or arrest the suspects, that Garda Commissioner Eamonn Doherty, believes that the bombers 'must have been helped' as no 'loyalist group could have done this on their own', that two of the suspects were paid informants of the British Army, that the British Army and MI5 also know the names of all the suspects, that the bombers were being 'run' by the Special Duties team, a group of SAS-trained undercover soldiers operating from Castledillon (under the cover of 4 Field Survey Troop), controlled by MI5 and led by Captain Tony Ball and Captain Robrt Nairac, that 4 Field Survey Troop were involved in cross border raids without political authorisation and that Nairac supplied the Portadown UVF brigade with arms and explosives and assisted in planning their illegal activities.]
They relate to the horrifying revelations in Yorkshire Television's investigation of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, which left 33 dead, and to the view of the head of the British Army's bomb disposal unit, Lt. Col. George Styles, who was awarded the George Cross for his work, that members of the British Army were using captured IRA explosives and detonating them south of the Border?

Mr. Newton: As I understand it, these are clearly matters for the authorities in the Republic of Ireland. Any investigation in the light of the allegations made in the programme to which the early-day motions refer is a matter for the Irish authorities and the Garda in the first instance.

Mr. John Greenway: As the House is preoccupied again today with the country's position in the European Community, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should bear in mind our special relationship with the United States? Will he ensure that, before the House rises for the recess, a special message of goodwill is sent to the tens of thousands of families in the mid-west of the United States who have been seriously devastated by the worst flooding in America in modern times?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that all hon. Members will want to express their sympathy for the difficulties—to put it mildly—being experienced by so many people in such a wide area of the midwest. I am glad to note that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is here: he can certainly ensure that the feeling in the House is conveyed to the American authorities.

Mr. Peter Hain: The Welsh Office is due to make a statement on the future of Neath and Port Talbot hospital before the recess. Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement to be made to the House on that matter? The previous Secretary of State gave a commitment that it would be a full district general hospital, but there are disquieting reports that it will be only an outpatient day hospital with all of the major surgical facilities transferred elsewhere. A statement should be made to the House so that the Minister can be questioned and challenged on that announcement, if it proves to be accurate.

Mr. Newton: I will draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. If such a matter, important though it undoubtedly is to the

hon. Gentleman's constituency, were the subject of a statement, we might well have nothing but statements in the House.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend consider scheduling a debate on the payment of large sums of money, in many cases, to criminals by the press, bearing in mind the return to this country of drug runners from Thailand?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend well knows that the Government deplore situations in which people make money effectively from the exploitation of criminal activities for gain. He also knows that there are great difficulties in framing legislative restraints. I am sure that he will wish to draw his feelings on this matter to the attention of the Press Complaints Commission.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on the reasons for the delay in the announcement of the closure of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station? Trawsfynydd has not produced a single watt of electricity for two and a half years at a cost of £80 million to the country and a delay in the plans for reskilling the work force. Why is there such harsh treatment for the coal mines and such gentle treatment for the set-aside nuclear power industry?

Mr. Newton: The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are a matter for Nuclear Electric. I understand that the company is carefully considering the implications of the decision for the staff of the station.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has already raised in business questions the matter of the White Paper on the police and the Sheehy report. Will my right hon. Friend encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to come to the House at an early date to accept the total opposition of the police service to the Sheehy report and announce that he is prepared to set up a royal commission into the police, their remuneration and their status in society?

Mr. Newton: Happily, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is by my side and will have heard the message communicated direct. He may also have had reports of the large meeting at Wembley stadium during the week.

Ms Liz Lynne: In view of the fact that my constituents in Rochdale are uncertain about the question of assisted area status, will the Leader of the House confirm or deny that the press have been informed that there will be a statement in the House tomorrow on assisted area status? If the press have been told, why were we not told first?

Mr. Newton: I have already made it clear on a number of occasions that a statement will be made before the recess.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the proposal to deregulate the Weeds Act 1959? That Act outlawed the cultivation of five species of weed, including ragwort, the spread of which is already seriously out of control. That is


causing great concern to country men and horse owners because ragwort is increasingly responsible for poisoning horses, and action needs to be taken.

Mr. Newton: It is fortunate that so many of my right hon. Friends are present today, and I note that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is sitting a little further down the Front Bench, nodded her head vigorously to me to communicate that she will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen this month's issue of "Euro Briefing" from the Conservatives of the European Parliament, which calls for greater openness in the affairs of the European Community, especially the Council of Ministers? It recommends that what is decided in the Council of Ministers should be made available and that the votes should be detailed. Several answers to written questions have revealed that the policy of openness has started in our Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that policy should be extended so that the openness called for in that document is extended to everything that takes place in the House?

Mr. Newton: I have a lot of sympathy for the general request for openness in the Community. That was one of the main objectives of the British Government, during our presidency, at the Birmingham and Edinburgh Council summits. I do not wish to add to the points that were then made, except to say that I have been told that it is the hon. Gentleman's birthday and I would like to wish him many happy returns.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for the planned early debate on the defence estimate. I wonder whether we could have before we rise for the summer recess an emergency debate on the new 2,300 jobs that will be created by the Ministry of Defence in Dorset, not least because all those jobs are within easy travelling distance of Christchurch?

Mr. Newton: That certainly sounds a very helpful suggestion. I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend says. He may find some opportunity during the Consolidated Fund debate, for example, or during the debate on the summer Adjournment to make further reference to that matter.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes a statement to the House to guarantee that the report from the Argyll and Clyde health board on the blunders that were made concerning the smear tests on 20,000 women in the Inverclyde area will be released to the public and those women and that they will not have to wait for it to be sent to the inquiry? My hon.

Friend the Member for Port Glasgow and Greenock (Dr. Godman) and I are desperate to ensure that our folk get peace of mind by seeing that report as soon as it is printed and available.

Mr. Newton: It is, of course, everyone's desire to ensure that clarity and greater peace of mind are established on those matters as soon as possible. I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Leader of the House read again my excellent Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Wales) Bill? Does he accept that it has been carefully drafted and that it has the overwhelming support of the majority of hon. Members who represent Wales? Is he aware that tens of thousands of people in Wales suffer from serious disability? I should like to know when my Bill might be debated in the House.

Mr. Newton: I believe that the hon. Gentleman might have to do his own research on how the Bill might be discussed again in the spill-over period. He will, of course, have further opportunities in the new Session to debate the Bill, if he wishes to take them up. He will know that, as a former Minister for disabled people, I share his aims, but we are not convinced that the Bill is the best means of achieving them.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate after the recess on the standards of conduct in public life so that we can discuss questions of procedure for Ministers? At least four Ministers are directors of companies in contradistinction to the requirements of the list of rules. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that security firms, secretarial firms and similar activities are not connected with family estates? There is no excuse for a Government who impose laws and tight rules on the poorest of the poor governing income support and all other aspects of life to be sloppy about their Ministers.

Mr. Newton: I commented on that last week. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman raises it again, unless he wants to engage in muck-raking. I shall not add to what I said last week.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate in Government time on the thousands of victims of holiday companies that collapse every week because of the Government's legislative incompetence? Will he ensure that there is an investigation into the collapse of Global Link and SFV Villa Holidays, which happened because of ministerial negligence?

Mr. Newton: I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I will, of course, draw his somewhat overheated statement to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Points of Order

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I have given you prior notice of this matter which is in connection with the ruling which you gave yesterday and which is reported in columns 353 and 354 of the Official Report.
As you know, Madam Speaker, article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 does not apply to Scotland. Yet the ruling given yesterday seemed to imply that that Act was binding on the whole House. It is important that, before we embark on today's debate on the social chapter and the future of the Maastricht treaty, you give a clear ruling of the implications for the constitution of Scotland and for the constitutional legal position of Scotland in the context of that ruling.
The Bill of Rights defined clearly that parliamentary sovereignty in England existed in Parliament. The Claim of Right, the equivalent document in Scotland, which was passed one year prior, defined clearly that sovereignty lay with the Scottish people. The Act of Union of 1707 incorporated neither the Bill of Rights nor the Claim of Right—[Interruption.] Despite the noise from Conservative Members, there is an important constitutional point to which they should listen.
Those documents were not incorporated in the Act of Union. Therefore, in the context of Scottish constitutional law, we cannot be bound to a ruling that is based on the Bill of Rights of 1689 in the context of parliamentary sovereignty. I refer to a ruling made in the Court of Session in Scotland in 1953 when the matter was clearly spelt out in a case between John MacCormick and the Lord Advocate. The Court of Session papers of 1953 said:
The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law … I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.
Your statement yesterday, Madam Speaker, indicated that English legislation was binding because it related to English courts of justice. Does that mean—this where I seek your clear ruling—that Scottish legislative rights, the Scottish legal system and the jurisdiction of Scottish courts can be ignored by this place? Surely, if it were so desired, the Scottish courts could seek separate and distinctive representations on issues pertaining to the Maastricht treaty and the social chapter.
I realise that it is not an easy issue for you, Madam Speaker, or for the House, but I seek the clear ruling that the statement did not apply to Scotland, that the ruling did not either implicity or explicitly suggest that Westminster is the English Parliament in continuation, and that the democratically elected members of Scottish constituencies should not be tied to an English system.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Before you gave your ruling yesterday, did you have regard to the terms of the case of MacCormick against the Lord Advocate and especially to the fact that the judgment was delivered by Lord President Cooper, who is renowned as an expert in Scottish constitutional law? If your ruling applies only to the English courts, does it follow that those who wish to challenge, as they have already sought to do in England, may opt to do so at the Court of Session in Edinburgh rather than in the High Court in the Strand?

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is this further to the point of order?

Mr. Flynn: Yes.

Madam Speaker: In that case, let us hear it.

Mr. Flynn: During business questions, Madam Speaker, we—

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to this matter?

Mr. Flynn: No.

Madam Speaker: In that case, let me clear up the matter. My statement yesterday stands complete. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appeal to you as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers. As a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency outside London, you will be familiar with the fact that many of us have full constituency engagements on a Friday. We have just heard a suggestion in business questions that a matter of supreme importance to my constituency and to other constituencies will take place tomorrow: there is to be a statement on assisted area status. It has also been claimed that that information has been given to the press. Even this afternoon, that information has not been given to us. Why on earth can we not be given that important information at least at the same time as it is given to members of the press?

Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whether Fridays, Tuesdays or Thursdays, all sitting days are precious to me.

Treaty of Maastricht (Social Protocol)

Madam Speaker: Before we move to today's motion, I must tell the House that I have been made aware of an interest in the possible application of the House's sub judice rules to today's debate. The rule operates subject to the discretion of the Chair. It is by no means clear that any current case is directly relevant to today's proceedings, but to avoid any uncertainty, I wish to announce at the outset that I have decided not to apply the sub judice rule today.
A number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate, so there is a time limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm of 10 minutes. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.
The debate we have in the House this afternoon is without precedent. After months of discussion, Parliament has passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act with huge majorities. In this House, there was a majority of over 240 on Second Reading and of 180 on Third Reading. In the other place, there was a majority of well over 100 on Third Reading and of 269 in the showpiece vote over a referendum. Rarely in recent history has Parliament shown its will so effectively. Today's debate is an attempt to frustrate that will.
I believe that ratification of the Maastricht treaty is in the interests of this country. I negotiated the treaty because I believed that it was in the interests of this country, and that is why I signed it. That is why I refused to ditch it or to change it, even though there was plenty of opportunity to do so over the past year. Let me set out to the House the reasons why I regard it as vital for this country, for the reasons do not just relate to what is within the treaty itself, but go wider than the treaty and relate to the general position in the European Community.
We took the decision to join the Community—the right decision, I believe—over 20 years ago. From the day we took the decision, across both sides of the House, it has often been a matter of controversy. Sometimes it has been bitter, sometimes it has flared up, and at other times, for a while, it has been quiescent. Always that schism between the parties has rested there, and it has damaged the influence that this country has been able to exercise within the European Community.
Too often, as a result of those divisions within this House and sometimes beyond it, this country under successive Governments—I make no party point—has allowed itself and its interests to be sidelined. If it had not been for those disputes, and if we had been able to play the full part in the Community that I believe we should have done, it might not have developed in the way it has., and many of the concerns that some hon. Members have might well have been dealt with.
In that period, we have had many successes in the Community. The British rebate was a great negotiating success. The single market was one of the greatest changes in the EC since its conception. The reform of the common agricultural policy, the enlargement of the EC—each and every one, in its own way, is a big issue that has affected every aspect of the EC. All of them were British successes.

It shows that we can win the arguments at the European table. Despite that, we have still not exercised the influence that we should have, or shaped the EC in the fashion that was possible.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to deal with serious matters rather than frivolous interruptions at the moment.
Too often over the years, the dominant political attitude has been to object to the ways others have wanted to develop the EC, rather than to set out our plans, our prospects and our hopes and then fight for them to deliver the type of community that is right for this country.
Many hon. Members are right in their opposition to the way in which the EC operates. Some of the ways that it operates need to be changed—I strongly support that. I want to see the EC reformed, as do my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members, but if we are to reform the EC, Britain must have influence in the EC. We will not have influence if we do not ratify the treaty that we have agreed after consultations in the House.
I did not initiate the negotiations. I have made it clear that I thought that they were premature, and I said so to our partners during our negotiations. I did seek to negotiate what I believed to be the best outcome for Britain. I did so within a remit I had obtained from the House, and after seeking the views of Parliament and negotiating within them.
I believe that, as a result of that discussion and debate within the House, it was right for me to decline to accept the social chapter—and the single currency without the express will of the House.
I believe that the events which have followed the conclusion of the negotiations have proved that judgment to be correct. As I have told the House before, in my judgment Europe is not yet remotely ready for a single currency, and the present economic circumstances across Europe mean that it cannot afford the ambitions of the social chapter.
The House and the Government must accept the obligations we entered into and that Parliament approved in the European Communities (Amendment) Act. There is a straightforward self-interested reason for this country why we must do that. If we fail to do that, no British Government will have influence in Europe for many years.
Europe is a market of vital interest to our companies, and to this country's future prosperity and future employment. If we wilfully throw away our capacity to defend our interests and promote our policies in that market, I believe that this country will pay a dear price for that folly in the years to come. I would ask every hon. Member—including some of my hon. Friends—to reflect deeply on that point before they vote this evening.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He has forcefully and clearly made the argument for our remaining within the EC in order to argue our case and develop our position. Surely the same argument exactly applies to the development of social policy. How can this country influence the development of European social policy by opting out?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government accept that there is a social dimension to the EC. We have the best implementation of the social dimension of any European country. Perhaps if Opposition Members were better informed, they would not talk such rubbish so much of the time.
I know the hon. Gentleman's affection for Europe, but I say to him that a good European does not accept every piece of nonsense from Brussels just because it has a European label. If we believe that the social chapter is bad for employment—and I do believe that—then it is right for us to argue against it, and to try to persuade our partners to argue against it also.
I believe that that is what we are doing, and increasingly in Europe, businesses and employers are saying what we have said in this country and what I have said from the outset—the charter will destroy jobs across the EC.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
For the first time in 20 years, we are beginning to see a material move in the European Community agenda in the direction that Britain has long sought. It would be absurd for us to throw away our influence in the Community at this moment. We are seeing enlargement. We are seeing increasing moves towards the repatriation of responsibilities in this country—I hope for concrete progress on that in December. We are seeing proper budget control both within the Commission and right the way across the Community.
The European Community will continue to develop, whatever else may happen. But we need to influence the way of that development and to see that it moves in a way that is congenial to the British interest.
I want a wider European Community. I regard the present Community as but a fragment of Europe. That is why I wish to see the European Free Trade Association countries join, and a little later, our old friends in central and eastern Europe. The wider that we can spread the European Community, with a free market concept not only in economic terms but in military and security terms, the more we shall be able to hand a glorious bonus to the next generation that we should not throw away.
So I want that wider Community—a free-market Community, a Europe with the minimum necessary centralisation, a Europe that exercises more powers through the elected Governments of its member states and fewer powers through unelected commissioners, a Europe in which national Governments exercise undiluted control over genuine domestic policy matters from national elections to our education system, from health care to religion. That is the sort of Community that has been our agenda for a long time, and we are beginning to make progess in encouraging others to support the development of that sort of Community.
We seek a Community that emphasises co-operation between Governments, not imposition from the centre. We seek a Community where member states freely decide the agenda and the outcome. We seek a Community which limits common rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to matters such as free trade and free competition,

where they are genuinely necessary for any level playing field to be established. That is the Community that we seek to develop and shape.
However, we can do that only from the inside. If we are inside the Community fighting for that with allies elsewhere in the Community, we can build properly in the interests of our future. It is a process that we can take much further as a fully committed member of real influence.

Mr. Benn: I have listened intently to the Prime Minister. Has it occurred to him that he can do the things of which he speaks only if he carries the full-hearted consent of the British people? He has the power through the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with a majority, to force the treaty through and ratify by the prerogative, but he has absolutely failed to tell the British people that they have any role in the matter, any interest in the matter or any right to determine the matter. As a result, he is carrying into the Community the establishment of Britain but not the British people. He will pay a heavy price for that, and so will the Community.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been a passionate opponent of much of the Community for many years. He has not changed his views, and I respect him for that. He spoke in the House the other day of the rights of Parliament in this House. We are a parliamentary democracy. Decisions such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should properly be taken in the House, and are taken in the House.
I do not want to see either a centralist or a federalist Europe. I mean federalist in the sense in which we refer to it, not in the sense in which other countries refer to it. They mean something different by it. Yet when I say that to some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, they are apt to say to me, "What about this country or that? There are federalist countries in the Community." That is true. There are. That is why we need influence and allies in Europe to build the sort of European Community we want.
What is the alternative to that approach? To leave the Community? Very few right hon. or hon. Members would go into the Lobby for that proposition, today or any other day. What is the other alternative? To stand aside and let other people run the Community in a way of which we would not approve? That is hardly the right way to exercise influence in the Community.
I have never understood why so many people who claim to be the most pro-British—whichever party is in government—have the least faith in our arguments and our capacity to prevail in the European argument.

Mr. Cryer: This is not a frivolous point. One of the threads of the Prime Minister's argument is that, unless we become enmeshed more deeply in Europe through the Maastricht treaty, we will not have any influence, and that the differences between political parties are inhibiting that influence.
On one matter there has been consent between all the political parties—the common agricultural policy. It is wasteful, costly and out of control. That has not changed. The reforms that the Government have instituted are costing more. The food mountains are growing; they are imposed on world food markets and are damaging developing nations. We have not done a thing to change it, and we cannot.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that we have not yet gone far enough, and I share that view; I think that there are further reforms to be made to the common agricultural policy. Which way are we most likely to get them? By standing on the sidelines and throwing stones at the Community, or by being inside, seeking allies in other countries?
There is only one way in which we could find ourselves with the centralist, federalist Europe that we do not want, and that would be to sideline ourselves, through our own efforts, and let other nations determine the future development of the Community. That would be a folly of historic proportions for the country and the House. That is why we need to seek allies in the Community, and why we need to honour our obligations and to ratify the treaty that Parliament has approved.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and I do not differ on the importance of the treaty, if he stands by what he said some time ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht Treaty.
We have seen what the right hon. Gentleman has done over recent months, and what he will seek to do this evening. But it is a matter of huge importance to this country that we honour the obligation that we entered into after consulting the House, and then continue to build the Community that we wish to see.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Prime Minister emphasised a moment ago that we are a parliamentary democracy. Notwithstanding his own feelings and those of his Cabinet on the social chapter, if the House decides to support the Opposition amendment in favour of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister, as a democrat, accept that resolution and implement it?

The Prime Minister: I expect that the will of the House will be to support the Government. If by some mischance that were not to be the case, we would make our position clear at the conclusion of today's business.

Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend knows that, for many years, I have opposed the social chapter because of the effect that it would have on companies such as ICI in Stowmarket, which is in my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to oppose the social chapter as strongly as he can. I will be voting against the social chapter and in support of the Government in the Lobby tonight. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I hope that the gesture of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is intended to indicate that we have one hon. Member on our side, and nothing else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) referred to ICI. ICI is one of the biggest employers in the country—[Interruption.]—and provides jobs in the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who are shouting at me. Its chairman, Sir Denys Henderson, has said:
The Prime Minister is right to seek ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and, equally, it is vital that he continues to insist on the Social opt-out provision which he successfully negotiated last year.
That is the view of a business man whose company will employ many thousands of people in the constituencies of many hon. Members who are contemplating voting for the amendment.

Mr. Derek Enright: rose—

The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The Opposition amendment seeks to impose the social chapter on us. I believe that it would be profoundly damaging to jobs and growth in this country, as do business men—although, having quoted Sir Denys Henderson, I will not detain the House with a large number of other quotes that I could offer to that effect.
There is no true majority for the social chapter in the House. It is wholly opposed by those who understand the economic damage that it would cause. There is an alliance of Members, for differing reasons, who may seek to come together and vote for the amendment, but it is not an alliance based on any conviction whatever.
My hon. Friends are aware of the deficiencies of the social chapter, yet I know that some of them are tempted to vote for the Labour amendment or against the substantive motion. They do not believe in it, but they have convinced themselves that it will prevent ratification of the Act.
Other hon. Members may have considered voting in a similar way. They, too, know and understand in many cases the damage of the amendment. They do not want more unemployment and they do not want a more centralist Community. I hope that those Members will reflect again on the cynicism of such a vote, and on the damage that it will do to this country.
Parliament is no longer debating the merits of the Maastricht Bill. The Bill is now an Act and, in due course, the treaty will be ratified. What Parliament is debating is whether we should negotiate a new treaty to add Britain to the social agreement. The treaty in the Maastricht Bill—the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given to the Act, so the treaty will be ratified. Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary.
The House knows that to vote for the Labour amendment today is a cynical and unscrupulous vote which does not represent the true will of the House. It is an alliance of different parties with different interests, voting for the same amendment for different purposes. In any genuine free-standing vote in the House, the social chapter would be defeated, as any Member of the House knows. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has said:
The social chapter opens the way to European-wide collective bargaining arrangements. They are wrong for this country's future and contrary to the Liberal party's belief in decentralising wage bargaining. It is an approach that failed in the 1970s and one that could not work in the 1990s. It is too costly, too inflexible and too rigid"—
and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to vote for it tonight.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he would like to know the facts that made me change my mind and support the Government tonight. A manufacturing company in my constituency has interests in Europe but is now considering closing down those interests because the costs imposed by the social chapter, and will be bringing those jobs back into this country and into my constituency. On that basis, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that there was no way that I could support the treaty chapter.

The Prime Minister: rose—

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his latest convert?

The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to accept a sinner returning home. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) back supporting the Government.
The Opposition amendment is a stratagem by an Opposition who have lost their principled concern for the Community. They are seeking solely to embarrass the Government, and a small number of Back Benchers want to obstruct the treaty. Anyone who is concerned with the interests of this country would regard the attitude of the official Opposition as incomprehensible, and that of the Liberal party, given its previous statements, as, frankly, contemptible.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Since the Prime Minister has for, if I recall, the third or fourth time quoted my words—incidentally, quoted words that were uttered before the treaty was signed—may I say to him that his speech so far has been a most passionate and, if I may say so, effective statement about why it is important to be inside European institutions helping to shape them, not outside suffering from them.
I do not understand how the speech that he has given so far, which is about being included in European institutions, can be used to justify an opt-out from European institutions. It is entirely true that my party and I have reservations about the social chapter, just as the Prime Minister has reservations about the Maastricht treaty, but he has argued that it is in our country's interests to be inside the treaty changing them, not outside complaining about them.
What applies to the Maastricht treaty also applies to the social chapter. If the Prime Minister genuinely believes that Britain's interests are served by being within Europe shaping its institutions, why is he recommending to the House that we should be outside complaining and suffering from them?

The Prime Minister: I recall going fishing many years ago when somebody caught an eel. "My," they said, "look how it wriggles." Wriggle though the right hon. Gentleman may, the quotes that I have used support my case and not his—as, since the right hon. Gentleman tempts me, does this one:
The action Labour is taking will prolong Britain's uncertainties about Europe, delay inward investment, delay sterling recovery … and lose jobs. I am not going to vote for Labour for one night of fun at the Government's expense and ask the British people to pay in more lost jobs.
Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that or not?

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman, and his party, believe that. I remind the Prime Minister that, were it not for the votes of our party, there would be no Maastricht treaty before the House. I remind him that our position was then, as it is today, that, if it is a question of ratification of the treaty, there is no doubt where our votes stand, but this is a question of whether Britain shall be inside the social chapter of the treaty or outside. Our view consistently has been that we should be inside, and we shall express that view tonight.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement of immense significance, for he and his

party were asking earlier about the will of the House. If the Labour amendment is defeated and the main motion is now laid before the House, the only conclusion from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he will be in the Government Lobby on the main motion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I invite him to intervene again if he wants to corrrect me.

Mr. Ashdown: Let me make it clear to the Prime Minister that, if the circumstances he describes arrive tonight, we shall continue to vote to express our wish that the social chapter should provide benefits to Britain and to Britain's work force, which has nothing to do with ratification of the Maastricht treaty, as the Prime Minister knows full well.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman becomes more ludicrous by the intervention. By that time, the amendment will have been lost. The party that talks about the will of the House, within seconds of having seen that amendment lost, would seek not to vote with the logic of its argument. How like a Liberal. Usually it takes a day for them to change their minds; this time it is rather quicker.

Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If he thinks back to the story of the young boy fishing, does he recall that not only is an eel "one that wriggles", but that eels are excessively slippery? [Laughter.]

The Prime Minister: This is becoming more fun than I had imagined.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding what might happen if we were to adopt the social chapter, this country's experience with the European Community has taught us that it has many ways of destroying jobs? That is shown by the fishing industry, which is practically on its knees, and by the meat processing industry—the latest to be decimated by European regulations.
During all the years that I have run a small business and other firms have come to me with their problems, European regulations have consistently destroyed jobs in this country. The idea that we will be able to control the European Community's imposition of those regulations on employers in this country is pie in the sky, and the triumph of hope over experience.

The Prime Minister: In that case, my hon. Friend should be in the Lobby against the social chapter this evening. As a small business woman, my hon. Friend will know that 60 per cent. of our exports go to the European Community, and that a massive amount of inward investment comes to every part of this country partly because of our membership of the European Community.
Let me turn directly to the social chapter. Through qualified majority voting—not unanimity—the Community would have the power to determine social and working conditions. The social chapter would allow the Community to restrict part-time work, whether or not we agreed in this House. It could set a rigid framework for rules and conditions of employment, which would replace the rules developed in this country, and few areas, if any, would be exempt. Trade unions across Europe could forge


deals and translate them into Community law, over the heads of individual workers and without the involvement of the British Parliament.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

The Prime Minister: I will spare the House another quotation from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
Above all, the social chapter would mean that many who are now employed would be likely to become unemployed. Many without jobs would stay without jobs. The main right that workers would get would be the right to become unemployed.
I strongly support our membership of the Community, but I support a Community which does not intrude into areas that are properly the domain of the member states. That, I believe, is what the social chapter does. There is already concern across the House, not just on the Conservative Benches, at the Commission's attempts to use health and safety powers for social legislation. We will oppose any abuse of those powers. We shall, if necessary, challenge the Commission's legal base—as we are doing over the working time directive.
In the social protocol, through the opt-out that I negotiated with the consent of the House and a massive majority to do so, I have preserved the right of the House to decide. Yet, in the amendment to the Government's motion, the Opposition seek to remove that right. They are supported by the Liberal Democrats. On the social chapter, as on defence, value added tax and much else, the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another. They change their principles from doorstep to doorstep, week to week and issue to issue.
This week, the hon. Members for Holborn and. St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) were both parroting the facile proposition that, without the social chapter, Britain would have a sweatshop economy. Good slogan; rotten argument. The Labour party says it. So does the Liberal party, naturally. That is nothing surprising—they are usually indistinguishable, and usually both wrong.
The truth is that Britain has the best health and safety record in Europe, the best occupational pension scheme in Europe and the best system for caring for vulnerable people in Europe. Rather than talking such nonsense, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should talk to business and learn what he is talking about.
Business knows that the Community must compete or contract. If we add to social costs, we will not compete and we shall contract. We shall lose jobs in the short term and the long term. The one certain impact of the social chapter is that jobs will be lost and unemployment will be worse. That is what is at stake.
Is it worth it? Go and ask our industrialists. Will it help them to grow? Will it pay high wages? Will it guarantee jobs? Ask good investors whether the social chapter will attract them to Britain. Listen to the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors—every single British organisation. They know that playing games on the social chapter is a dangerous game with the British economy. Everyone knows, except Opposition Members who would impose those burdens on British industry and the British work force.
Uncertainty about Britain's commitment to the Community is damaging to the country. It would undermine our standing, our influence and our national interests. That uncertainty undoubtedly will arise if Parliament does not now implement the Act that we have approved in Parliament. It must clear the way for the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. I believe that the treaty embodies the genuine will of a parliamentary majority, not the will of a coalition of disparate minorities simply to obstruct.
As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said:
we should not consort with
people
who … are just completely, fundamentally anti the European Community.
I hope that he stands by that.
During the past few years, Britain has had an increasingly strong voice in the Community. As never before, we have influenced its future direction. So long as we remain a fully committed member, we can have an even stronger voice in the future.
That does not mean accepting everything wanted by our partners. It means being in there in the Community; arguing, debating, shaping the future of our Community and carrying alliances with us. Europe is beginning to move in our direction. In France, in Germany and in Britain, a large majority looks not to a super-state, not to a united states of Europe, but to a Europe of nation states. Those states co-operate closely and enjoy a single market embracing 340 million people, but they retain their identity and sovereignty.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will know of my strong opposition to and reservations about the Maastricht treaty. I have been greatly encouraged by what he has said about how he envisages Europe's future and the influence that he can bring to bear on Europe from within Europe. In his speech this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend help me by assuring the House and me that this country will not move towards a single currency and return to the exchange rate mechanism as long as he is in power? Will he assure us that we in this country, who are proud of our sovereignty, integrity and place in the world, will be able to continue to have control over our foreign and security policies?

The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly said to the House on a number of occasions that I do not envisage that we shall be able to move towards a single currency—a matter on which the House makes the decisions—in anything remotely like the time scale previously set out. That is increasingly becoming the view of other people. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has said on several occasions, there is no prospect of our returning to the exchange rate mechanism in the near future, as the conditions are simply not right. I do not envisage that they will be right for some considerable period of time.
Britain's interests demand that we play a leading part in the Community. Common sense demands that we retain the freedom of action which I secured in signing the social protocol. That is why the Government are determined to ratify the treaty I signed and to oppose last-ditch efforts to delay or distort it. It is a matter of national interest that we proceed in that fashion, and it is upon that basis that I ask the House to put aside and reject the Opposition amendment, and to adopt the motion.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should not deposit the Articles of Ratification of the Treaty of European Union with the Government of the Italian Republic until such time as it has given notification to the European Community that it intends to adopt the Agreement attached to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
The Prime Minister made a curious start to the debate when he complained about the fact that we were debating the resolution and the amendment at all today. We are having the debate because of section 7 of the very Act to which he drew attention. He claims that the Act has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, which is certainly true—it has received Royal Assent. Section 7 makes it clear that the Act cannot come into force until the House of Commons comes to a resolution.
The Prime Minister described the debate as if it were an irritation to the Government—a devious ploy by the Opposition. However, the debate is a requirement of the Act of Parliament which he used to justify most of what he said. In addition, when discussing the Bill in Committee, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government had no difficulty in accepting new clause 74—which became section 7 of the Act. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government accepted the challenge presented by the proposals contained in the new clause. On 22 April he said:
It is reasonable that the House should want the opportunity to vote on the principle of the social protocol." —[Official Report, 22 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 548.]
I have discovered why the Foreign Secretary is not winding up today's debate. It would be too inconvenient to have a Government apologist who had agreed to the procedure which we are now adopting speaking alongside a Prime Minister who is seeking to condemn it. It is nothing other than a requirement of the Act which both Houses of Parliament have passed, but it gives the House the opportunity which the Government sought to avoid in Committee—a vote on whether we should have the social chapter and the social protocol as part of the British version of the treaty.
It took the Prime Minister a little while to get round to it, but once again he today advanced the startling proposition that measures of social protection which are thought to be desirable by all 11 of our partner nations in the European Community are in some curious way a threat to British prosperity. As the argument has continued throughout the Bill's consideration, the Government have persistently sought to misrepresent the content and effect of the social chapter provisions. A deliberate campaign of misrepresentation by the Government has reached new peaks of exaggeration as each day passes.
Therefore, it is vital for the House to consider what the social protocol is and what it is not. The other 11 states have agreed that there should be a modest extension of the Community's competence in social affairs—matters such as the protection of the health, safety and working conditions of people at work, workers' rights to information and consultation, and equality for men and women in relation to work opportunities and treatment at the workplace. The argument is all about those sectors where qualified majority voting applies.
There are other extensions of competence to social security and social protection where unanimity would still

be required. There are sectors—which the Government have consistently failed to acknowledge—which are specifically excluded from the agreement. They include pay, the right of association and the right to strike.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a man who is concerned about unemployment—he has often told the House that. Will he tell us straight that he is convinced that the social chapter will not cost a single British job? If so, can he give the calculations on which his belief is based?

Mr. Smith: I am wholly convinced that adopting the social chapter in this country will improve, rather than undermine, employment opportunities. What is more, I shall develop the argument as I proceed with my speech.
I shall remind the House just what the social protocol is about. I do not make any enormous claims for its proposals, which are fairly modest. But the Government say that the proposals are a sinister threat to our economic future, a deadly plot by the Brussels bureaucrats to destroy jobs and economic growth from which, in the nick of time, our heroic Prime Minister has rescued us all.
The irony of the Prime Minister posing as a job protector will not be lost on the millions of people who have been victims of the economic policies for which he has been responsible as Chancellor and Prime Minister. That self-styled saviour of jobs and growth has the worst record on jobs and growth of any British Prime Minister since the war.
It is when one examines the provisions of the social protocol that the absurdity of the Government's claims is revealed. In what sense and in what way does the improvement of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety or the improvement of working conditions impede economic growth? How on earth can equality between men and women in labour market opportunities and treatment at work be considered economically harmful in a civilised, modern state?

Mr. Phil Gallie: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way.
It becomes even more absurd when one appreciates that the purpose of the agreement is to have similar rights and opportunities in every Community country to create a level playing field of social opportunity. We hear much about level playing fields from Conservative Members who mention them nearly every day in the Chamber. It is odd that they will not adopt that concept in relation to the rights of working people, and men and women.
That concept is fully understood by the rest of the Community, which is why all the other 11 member states readily agreed to the social charter of 1989 and the social action programme that flowed from it. It is why they have consistently resisted British Conservatives' attempts to prevent further progress in the social sphere. They agreed to the protocol because they all understand what the British Conservative party is incapable of appreciating—that economic success and social progress go hand in hand.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is going to become a nuisance, so I shall give way to him now.

Mr. Gallie: I realise that it is a long time, if ever, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman participated in the industrial scene. Will he therefore take it from me, as one who has recently come from industry, that the health and safety issue is a preoccupation of British industrialists these days and is already considered to be of prime importance?

Mr. Smith: I had not, I must confess, envisaged the hon. Gentleman as a British industrialist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Nor do I think that he was. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why industrialists in every other Community country do not understand it in precisely the same way? I should like to know—

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this point.
I should like to know why the hon. Member for Ayr only ever talks about employers. Why does he never talk about emloyees?

Mr. David Hunt: Earlier this month the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said—I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will concede this—that
Every single employer group, like the CBI, in Europe, in Germany and in France are against the social chapter and only our Government has actually had the courage to say that we don't want any part of it.

Mr. Smith: It will come as a matter of total astonishment to this House to hear that a bunch of Tory business men say that they are on the side of the employers. [Interruption.] What is more, if the Secretary of State for Employment wants us to have the evidence from Europe, why does he not quote what was said by the general secretary of UNICE, the employers' organisation in Europe, which wants the social chapter to be incorporated?

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Perhaps I can help the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The chairman of the European Employers Federation, Mr. Ferrer, who comes from a socialist country that believes in the social chapter, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that has an unemployment rate of 23 per cent., turned up at the last European Social Affairs Council and begged Ministers not to go on introducing legislation of this kind which destroys jobs.

Mr. Smith: I shall quote to the right hon. Gentleman the precise remarks of the general secretary of UNICE, the employers' organisation, on precisely this subject. [Interruption.] I hope that we are not going to disregard the general secretary, who was appointed by UNICE. The right hon. Gentleman wants to pick the remarks that he agrees with and ignore all the others.

Mr. David Hunt: indicated dissent. [Interruption.]

Mr. Smith: We should make more progress if Conservative Members were to calm down a little. They get very excited when remarks of the employers are quoted, but they never think of consulting the employees about any of their rights. The general secretary said:

If we look at the costs of employment only or social costs only, we're looking at one very small part of the picture … So it's … really … gross over simplification to reduce the whole thing to the costs of labour.
He is right. That is the view of UNICE, just as it is the view of the European TUC.
If the Conservative party is so right on this subject, why is it that the only political party in the rest of the Community that supports it is Mr. Le Pen's National Front? [Interruption.] Why is it that even right-wing Governments do not perceive the menaces and the threats which the Prime Minister and his colleagues see on all sides? Can it really be true—

Mr. David Hunt: The right hon. and learned Gentleman —[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. It is about time that hon. Members settled down —[Interruption.]—in all parts of the House. [Interruption.]Order. If hon. Members do not want to hear what is being said, I do.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I correct in believing that when a Member seeks to address the Chamber for a second time during a sitting, he or she is able to do so only with the permission of the House?

Madam Speaker: That is not the case.

Mr. Hunt: Opposition Members are not going to stop us putting the record straight. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I quote from the opening statement of Mr. Carlos Ferrer, speaking on behalf of UNICE—

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State for Employment is misleading the House. He has—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little calmness. No one is misleading the House. If, however, the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I shall be pleased to hear it.

Mr. Grocott: The point of order is this: as we try to listen to the debate, the intervention by the Secretary of State for Employment is not an intervention by him but the result of information acquired from civil servants sitting in the Box—from panic-stricken people, who are running up and down. Why do not Ministers come to the House with their own arguments?

Madam Speaker: As far as I am concerned, there is a Minister at the Dispatch Box who is speaking on behalf of the Government and responding to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hunt: The Leader of the Opposition purported to voice the views of UNICE. I quote from the opening statement of Mr. Carlos Ferrer, at an informal meeting of employment and social affairs Ministers, speaking on behalf of UNICE. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this:
I want to finish my statement with an urgent call for negative action. This is an appeal from the heart on behalf of the millions of companies which UNICE represents. Governments and the Community expect those companies to produce wealth to invest and to create jobs.
He concluded with these words —[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. If the House will come to order, it will hear what is being said—[Interruption.]— and what is said will be over with quickly.

Mr. Hunt: I am quoting from a statement made on behalf of UNICE. I finish with the general secretary's words—

Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since you have been in the Chair, I have often heard you rightly tell us that interventions should be interventions, not speeches. This is almost a wind-up speech by the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope that you will correct him, just as you have corrected many Back Benchers.

Madam Speaker: It is true that interventions should be short and to the point. [Interruption.] Order. When the House has settled down, I shall speak again. The point that I made earlier was that if hon. Members did not shout so much, whoever was intervening would be able to make his point quickly.

Mr. Hunt: I do not know why Opposition Members are trying to destroy the Leader of the Opposition's speech. I shall quote directly from the statement made on behalf of UNICE. The president—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall wait until everyone is finished. This is now becoming very repetitive. We know what is being quoted; may we have a direct quotation now?

Mr. Hunt: The president said to the Council of Ministers:
Then please stop taking measures"—
[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the House to settle down. We cannot make progress unless the House settles down. I ask the Secretary of State to come to his conclusion.

Mr. Hunt: He said:
Then please stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs.
Will the Leader of the Opposition now withdraw his earlier comment?

Mr. Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman, and those making noisy interventions on his behalf, was not seeking to destroy a speech, it is hard to work out what he was trying to do. I quoted exactly and precisely what the general secretary of UNICE said. [Interruption.] He said it in answer to a question on a BBC programme called "Analysis" on 6 June 1993, just a month ago. It was not a good point that hon. Members shouted at me.
I also remind the Secretary of State that UNICE is actively involved not only in the social protocol but in the machinery to implement it. It is in a special arrangement with the trade unions, about which I think the Prime Minister complained, but it can hardly be against the social chapter when it is in the middle of it, helping to operate it and make it work.
The fundamental point is why, if the employers were so compelling in their arguments, they have not been able to persuade Chancellor Kohl, Mr. Balladur and Mr. Lubbers, the right-wing Conservative figures in Europe, to listen to them. It passes belief that these people are involved in a nefarious plot to destroy their own

prosperity. Are these right-wing Conservative leaders so muddled and confused that they have become socialists by accident? Do we really believe that, when the Prime Minister goes to meet these colleagues at meetings of the European People's party and other such gatherings, he bangs the table in his commanding style and warns them that they are closet socialists?
Is it not passing strange that 11 Governments of many and different political complexions are all incapable of discerning the weaknesses in the social protocol? Why is it that not one of the four countries seeking entry into the European Community wants to opt out of the social chapter? Fifteen countries in Europe—those in the Community and those wanting to join—are all of one opinion; only one party and one country is on the other side—all out of step except our John. The Prime Minister must believe that they are all deluded.
Surely the truth is that it is the Prime Minister who is deluded about the nature and effect of the social chapter which elsewhere finds such widespread favour. After all—

Mr. Michael Alison: rose—

Mr. Smith: I have given way generously. I do not think that the Conservative party deserves very much indulgence from me in terms of giving way, in view of the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Alison: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Smith: After all, it requires quite an acute form of delusion to claim a triumph of negotiating skill in getting one's country isolated and excluded from a decision-making process of great importance to the Community and, inevitably, of importance to this country. What kind of success is it to have engineered a situation in which, when social affairs are on the Community's agenda, British Ministers have to leave the room, bereft—

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
British Ministers will be bereft of influence over legislation which many believe will come to apply in Britain as a result of decisions by the Court of Justice, whether or not there is an opt-out.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Smith: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Only in the Walter Mitty world that the Prime Minister increasingly inhabits could such nonsense be thought to be an achievement. Of course, we know that the Prime Minister wants the country to believe that, whatever the mess at home, he is really an ace negotiator abroad. Like the comic strip hero, Clark Kent, as soon as he leaves our shores behind, the Prime Minister is transformed into a diplomatic megastar. There he is, Britain's diplomatic megastar, his Superman shirt tucked neatly into his underpants; there he is, a very special kind of hero, shaping the very destiny of Europe, clutching his Maastricht optout as his colleagues gently take him to the door marked "Sortie".
What the Prime Minister does not understand—[Interruption.] I do not think that the Conservative party will gain very much by making rowdy noises throughout my speech. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Smith: Conservative Members sometimes forget that there is a wider audience for our proceedings than that in the House.
The Prime Minister and the Government do not understand that their opt-out is Britain's lockout—a lockout from decisions. I could not understand how the Prime Minister could argue that we had to be involved in decision making in the Community while also arguing the justification for an opt-out. Once again, decisions will be arrived at and policies forged in Britain's absence.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall what was said in the press when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returned from his negotiations? In France, it was said:
Holding his own"—
[Laughter.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was said:
Holding his own against his eleven partners, the Prime Minister can show that he has fought a tenacious battle and resisted the interference of socialist Brussels technocrats and demonstrated his devotion to economic liberalism.
That was said in Liberation in France.

Mr. Smith: I do not think that I can congratulate the hon. Lady on her delicacy. As for the details of her intervention, I think that it would be wiser if I simply moved on.
In an interesting article in The Times—a few years ago, admittedly—that point was made forcefully. The author wrote:
We paid a heavy price when others designed the Common Agricultural Policy. It would be unforgivable to repeat the mistake in industrial and financial policies…The same argument applies to the Social Charter. Britain has legislation in virtually all the relevant fields already. The issue is whether new policies come here by the back door following mergers and takeovers and designed by our competitors, or whether the Government battles to get the original proposals brought more into line with British initiatives and practice. I prefer the latter, as it will suit many in Europe as well.
That was the considered opinion of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He is now President of the Board of Trade, but in 1989 he was free to say what he thought. How many Conservative Members are there who, given the freedom to do so, would gladly vote for the social chapter tonight? I am genuinely sorry that the President of the Board of Trade cannot take part in the debate; he is representative of many other Conservative Members who share his point of view.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Mr. Smith: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is one of them, but out of many years of affection for him I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. Dickens: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about the back door. Has he thought how good industrial relations now are in this country, where,

instead of confrontation, teamwork between work force and management is working well? Does he not think that the social chapter would undermine the Thatcher years, during which we rolled back the frontiers? Would it not mean that the trade unions would control the nation again?

Mr. Smith: I should be happy to argue with the hon. Gentleman about all those matters, but I must remind him, as I sought to do at the beginning of my speech—other hon. Members, too, might bear the fact in mind—that pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lock-outs are not included in the social protocol, so they are not relevant to our discussion.
One should not be surprised to hear that the views that I have quoted were expressed by the President of the Board of Trade. One also hears them from Conservative Members of the European Parliament. In a debate in the European Parliament on 27 May this year, Sir Christopher Prout, whom I understand to be the leader of the Conservative MEPs, could not have put matters more plainly. What he said is on the record of the European Parliament:
The Conservative Party is in favour of the social dimension"—
[Interruption.] I thought that Conservative Members might all agree with that, and I hope that they will also agree with what Sir Christopher said next. He added, for good measure:
We all hope once Maastricht is ratified that a suitable intergovernmental agreement can be reached on this matter which will include all Member States.
The Conservatives will come back to the subject. I am sure that some hon. Members will have spotted their tactic. I find it fascinating that Sir Christopher Prout seems more determined to opt in than to opt out.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: It may assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman to know that Mr. Bill Newton Dunn is the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament and that many of us have no problem with the social dimension; it is the details of the protocol that we dislike and wish to vote against.

Mr. Smith: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I wish that she would weigh in the balance the comments that I read in newspapers such as The Sunday Telegraph. Last week that newspaper quoted a Dutch Christian Democrat, Jean Penders, on the attitudes of Tory MEPs.
Mr. Penders said that at first he was doubtful about his new British colleagues in the European People's party, but that now he is full of praise:
Oh, they all believe in the Social Chapter, all of them.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The Tory MEPs.
The article, by the Brussels correspondent of The Sunday Telegraph, went on to discuss the dilemma over the manifesto being drafted by the European People's party for the European elections next year, in which I believe the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) hopes to stand. Will the British Tories be bound by it? According to the European People's party, the manifesto will be based on its policies and positions and the British Tories will have to defend every word. It seems that quite a lot of talking will have to take place.
The problem for the Tories is that the European People's party has not been reticent about its views on federalism and the social chapter. I shall quote from the Athens declaration of the ninth congress of the European


People's party—[Laughter.] Conservative Members should not mock their continental confederates in that way. The declaration, approved in Athens in November last year, comes straight to the point:
The main political aim of the European People's Party is European unity. The party advocates European unification on the basis of democracy"—
So far, so good. I can see the Tories looking at me. But the declaration adds the words "and federalism." Even worse, federalism is described as "the ideal for Europe."
But it is when dealing with social policies that the European People's party, the Tories' new friend in Europe, really gets motoring. It says:
the European People's party declares its support for the implementation of the European Social Charter, the introduction of minimum standards for working conditions and social benefits, and workers' participation in decision making and company profits.
Few of us could have put that better than the European People's party did.
Let no one tell me that the EPP is not having a positively beneficial influence on the Conservative party. I know that it has friends and admirers in the highest reaches of that party, because of a speech made earlier this month by the Secretary of State for Employment, in which he declared himself glad to be a Christian Democrat. He said:
My own background in politics is a very European one, and I have always, willingly, described myself as a Christian Democrat as well as a Conservative … As the Union between the peoples of Europe, inch by questioning inch, grows ever closer, we will need to look for new alliances … I believe that political and ideological alliances between like-minded parties from different countries will soon come to complement—or supplant—old national rivalries and friendships … Our admittance"—
he means the Conservative party's admittance—
to the European People's Party in the European Parliament puts that scenario into perspective.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having said so clearly where the Conservatives stand. Revealingly, he also said:
There is already far more common ground than people imagine".
Hon. Members may wish to ask him more about that when he speaks later and makes his second intervention in the debate.
Lest there be any doubt about the increasing influence of the European People's party on the Conservative party, the Secretary of State for Employment drove his point home by saying:
There is even now, an EPP office at Smith square.
Gosh. That must be where Conservative Members can get their personal copies of the Athens declaration. But for the convenience of those attending the meeting of the 1922 Committee tonight, I have caused a copy to be placed in the Library. They can pick it up on their way.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am the only one who has a copy.

Mr. Smith: Precisely. It was a document for which wide circulation was not desired. However, it is now in the Library and hon. Members can obtain it. When they read it they will find out how much they have signed up to in Europe. It is a case not so much of socialism by the back door as of federalism by the front door—the front door of Tory central office.
At the heart of the debate is a profound difference about the kind of policies that Britain needs if we are to succeed and to hold our own in a competitive world. The Conservative party, as the Prime Minister's speech confirmed, wants to persist with the failed policies of the 1980s, for which the people of Britain are paying such a heavy price today. It wants to persist with those policies despite the accumulating evidence of their failure.
For example, the World Economic Forum recently published its world competitiveness report on the countries of the OECD, which showed that over the past five years the United Kingdom has fallen down the league. That is the sharpest deterioration in competitiveness of any EC country. The truth which must someday dawn on this Government is that their policies simply have not worked. Even the expurgated version of the Government's own Department of Trade and Industry report shows that Britain is still 25 per cent. below France and Germany in terms of productivity.
The evidence shows that the member states which embraced the social chapter when Britain rejected it have more impressive records of competitiveness and productivity. The Conservatives fail to understand that low wages, inadequate skills and persistent under-investment are the real drag anchors on Britain's economic performance. We have no future as the sweatshop of Europe. If we persist in the policies of social devaluation which lie behind the opt-out from the social chapter, I fear that our relative decline will continue. Indeed, it will accelerate.
Warburg's briefing last week on competitiveness among the leading industrial countries stated:
Despite having the lowest labour costs per working hour, Britain struggles with the highest unit labour costs.
That is proof surely, if it were needed, that having the lowest wages does not, as the opt-out merchants maintain, lead necessarily to competitive advantage. That is the answer to the question that I was asked at the beginning of this debate.
The Warburg study shows—sensible people know this —that improvement in productivity depends critically on capital investment, the pace of innovation and the quality of the labour force. That is the new economic agenda which Britain and Europe must embrace—not the bargain-basement techniques of wage cuts and skills depression. That is how we can best achieve the competitive edge which is vital to our economic success.
There is another view, the view adopted by British Conservatives, that by depressing wages and undermining the conditions of the work force, a relative advantage can be obtained. We have seen a grotesque example of that in the destruction of the wages councils which, for decades, offered protection to the lowest-paid workers in this country—the people at the greatest risk of exploitation.
The wages councils legislation was introduced at the turn of the century by Winston Churchill to protect the low-paid worker and the good employer. It has been swept aside by the mean-minded men and women of this Administration. Winston Churchill put the point forcefully to the House in 1909; feel free to remind the House of his comments, as it has seldom been put better:
Where you have … no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer … is undercut by the worst … where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress. but a condition of progressive degeneration." —[Official report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]


What a contrast that is with today, when a British Government actually place adverts in the German business press advertising Britain as a low-wage economy. Not for our skills, technology or productivity are we to be recommended—we are to be recommended just for our low wages.
There are low wages in a society in which income equality has dramatically widened over 14 Conservative years. Let me just remind the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] He may want to look at my notes and I hope that he will listen carefully to what I am going to say. I want to remind him of the wages that are actually being paid in the Britain of which he is Prime Minister today. A 28-year-old care assistant working in a private nursing home works 60 hours for £1·33 an hour. A coach driver works 60 hours a week for £2·10 an hour. A forecourt attendant in a petrol station works 70 hours a week for £1·40 an hour. That is the philosophy of the Conservative party and that is how it affects real people in the real world.
How many Conservative Ministers would contemplate accepting those rates of pay for themselves or for their families? If it is not acceptable to them, why should it be thought acceptable for anyone else? What makes it even harder to stomach is the constant rise in salaries, pensions and perks for the highest-paid executives at the same time as the exploitation of vulnerable people proceeds and the Government walk away from their responsibilities to those people. It is that weird Tory double standard on incentives: poor people can be motivated only by the thought of even greater poverty, but the rich are to be inspired by the lure of even greater wealth.
The Government's approach to international competition is just as crude. It is to compete against Taiwan on wages rather than against Germany on skills. The Government say that if our competitors pay low wages, we must follow them down. If there is no employment protection in countries against which we compete, such protection apparently cannot be afforded here either.
We in the Labour party believe that that approach is wholly flawed. Not only is it totally unjust to our people, it is not related in any way to the dynamics and realities of today's world economy. Investors at home and abroad today are seeking skills, technology and a highly motivated and self-confident work force. We hear a lot from the Government about inward investment and how that investment would be afraid to come near us if we were to sign up to the social protocol.
How strange that, in a recent study carried out by Arthur Andersen of Japanese inward investment, wages and social costs are not mentioned by Japanese companies as a factor determining decisions to invest in Britain. The problem which is highlighted and described as most important by Japanese enterprise is
the difficulty in recruiting skilled or qualified employees.
The Nissan director of personnel gave evidence the other day to the Select Committee on Employment. He dismissed the social chapter as a significant factor in respect of inward investment.
It is also highly revealing that many Japanese firms in Britain bring with them much better working practices than are common in British firms and which far exceed anything that would he required by the social chapter. A recent survey—[Interruption.] It would benefit Ministers

to listen to some of this evidence instead of, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rudely interrupting from a sedentary position.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I was merely provoked by the logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position. Having used a 1909 quotation and 1909 sentiments, he went on to describe the attractions to this country now of Japanese investment, to a deregulated economy which is outside the social chapter. He illustrates that the Japanese are not creating a sweatshop economy here. It is a modern, thriving economy, and the Japanese are coming here because we are attractive outside the social chapter.

Mr. Smith: I am surprised at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Surely the point about the 1909 quotation is that it is astonishing that someone in 1909 understood something which members of the Conservative party have not yet realised in the 1990s. Churchill said that when he was a Liberal. Apparently Conservatives only pay attention to what Churchill said when he was a Conservative, such is the narrow and partisan view of history and reality adopted by the Conservative party.
What the Chancellor of the Exchequer should understand—[Interruption.]—I hope that he will listen carefully to this—is that a recent survey of the pay and employment conditions in eight major Japanese-owned companies employing 15,000 people in the United Kingdom found that wages, maternity and paternity leave and fringe benefits in those companies were far more generous than those in Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point?"] I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will finally get the point that companies as progressive as that are not worried about a social chapter because they will easily be able to comply with its provisions.
I hope that some British companies will copy Nissan, which recently agreed two-year pay deal increases with maternity pay of up to 100 per cent. of average earnings for up to a maximum of 18 weeks. Maternity leave has been extended to 40 weeks after birth with existing rights of return to work maintained. Matsushita Electric, Sony and Komatsu have introduced parternity leave for their workers. Although Conservative Members often jeer at that, what in some ways is the most successful economic country in the world is showing us a better way forward in terms of social provision. Far from being put off by the social chapter, the Japanese are ahead of it.
In the real world, the new economic agenda requires a new approach—a positive combination of skills development, decent standards, humane standards, and ever-widening employment opportunities. That must mean giving greater opportunities at work for women on the basis of equal rights and adequate provision for maternity leave and child care—not just because that is their right, but because our economy needs the indispensable contribution that women can make to our future prosperity.
I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer nodding. That is why I find it odd that the Government should object to a social chapter which provides for
equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work.
In rejecting that provision, what message is the Conservative party giving to the women of this country?


That is why the Conservative party is seen as socially the most backward in Europe, even by its own party colleagues.
It is now entirely clear that the whole of this argument about opting out of the social dimension of the treaty is not about Britain's national interest or our future prosperity. It is much more about the internal politics of the Conservative party and increasingly about the tattered reputation of a discredited Prime Minister. One day he tells us that Britain must be at the heart of Europe—that is to keep his Chancellor and his Employment Secretary on board. On another day he warns of the insidious socialist threats inherent in the European scheme—words to please his Home Secretary and his Secretary of State for Social Security. One thing to the 1922 Committee; no doubt something else to the European People's party.
We are, of course, accustomed to and indeed sometimes entertained by the right hon. Gentleman's increasingly desperate games with his own party, but, at the end of the day, that must be a matter for them. What is an entirely different matter is the Prime Minister's attitude to Parliament. It must be a matter of astonishment that he has not readily accepted that the decision on the social chapter is for this House to take. Throughout our deliberations on the European Communities (Amendment) Act, the Government sought to avoid the House coming to a decision and agreed to section 7 of the Act, under which this resolution is debated, only when they faced the prospect of inevitable defeat if they did otherwise.
Over the Conservative years we have seen the checks and balances of our system of government being persistently undermined in favour of the power of the central state. We see that, for example, in the deliberate diminishment of local government and in the creation of ministerially dominated quangos on an unprecedented scale. But I warn the Prime Minister that, if he seeks to take it even further and seeks to defy the will of the House, he will have exceeded the power of his office.
I urge the House to vote for the social chapter. It is our responsibility in this House to make the decision and, when we have made the decision, it is the unavoidable responsibility of the Government to accept and to implement what the House has decided.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) shows astonishing naivety or forgetfulness if he thinks that there is a natural majority in the House in favour of the social chapter. Has the right hon. and learned Member forgotten that a reasoned amendment was debated on Second Reading, on 25 May 1992, declining to give a Second Reading to the Maastricht Bill because it did not accord with the social protocol? The motion was defeated by 360 to 261 votes—a natural majority of 99 against the social chapter. That situation has not changed.
Today, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are again debating the social chapter not because, in any sense, there is a majority in favour of it, but for two contradictory reasons. The first is that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats still believe, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown, that we should sign up

to the social chapter, despite all commentators being against it. Evidently, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East does not read the Financial Times. He does not read The Times. He does not read the paper published today by the Confederation of British Industry on behalf of all businesses, large and small, in which its members argue very strongly against our acceptance of the social chapter.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman got into the business of quoting European leaders against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I remind him of what the German Economics Minister, Gunther Rexrodt, said in Brussels on 29 June after presenting a 10-point plan designed to put Germany back on its feet. He is reported as commenting:
The plan is likely to undermine EC 'solidarity' in economic growth and related social policy matters.
When it was suggested to one of Mr. Rexrodt's aides that he appeared to be opting for the United Kingdom's approach to these issues, he commented, "What's wrong with that?"
The mood in the Community over the past 12 months has clearly been towards increasing concern about the social chapter, simply because it is now seen that, on average, wage costs in western Europe are 20 per cent. higher than those in the Pacific rim countries, and unemployment in western Europe remains constantly higher than in the United States, where the social costs of employing labour are much lower.
If we continued in that direction—the social chapter would emphasise it—jobs would continue to haemorrhage away from all western European countries towards south-east Asia, the Pacific rim and eastern European countries which are now newly competitive and, of course, interested in joining the Common Market, with lower labour costs.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Renton: If my hon. Friend will be brief, yes.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall be very brief. As there has been much talk about the importance of the social chapter and as my right hon. Friend has talked about the loss of jobs, will he give us an indication of what kind of directives could be made under the social chapter which cannot already be made under the Single European Act and article 101 of the treaty of Rome? I have asked that question six times during our long debates, and I am afraid that I have not had an answer.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend will know very well that to implement many of the suggestions in the social chapter would need directives which could come forward to this House for approval. But such directives, if they did not require a statutory instrument here, could go through in Brussels on qualified majority voting alone. That is where our problem arises. That deals with my hon. Friend's point. Although the social chapter is a relatively vague declaration—I agree with my hon. Friend, if that is what he is saying—it could be followed by specific measures which could slip through on qualified majority voting. That would be against the employment interests not only of this country but of other western European countries as well.
I wish to revert to the point that I was making to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. This


debate is happening not because it is in the natural course of events that we should have another debate on the social chapter—that suggestion was defeated in May last year by 99 votes—but, as I have said, for two very contradictory reasons. One is the continuing blind attachment of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to the measure, which can only lead to higher unemployment for western Europe if it is adopted and implemented by directives. The other reason is that a handful of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who do not believe in the social chapter for one second, nevertheless believe, as they might believe that the earth is flat, that by voting for the social chapter tonight they may somehow be able to scupper the Maastricht treaty. There is no possibility of that.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will make his own speech in his own good time. I suspect that if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will make it very soon.

Mr. Ashdown: On this particular point?

Mr. Renton: No. I wish to make progress. I do not want to delay the House.
It was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his opening remarks that, whatever happened about the social chapter, we would certainly go forward and ratify the Maastricht treaty. Whether that is before or after Lord Rees-Mogg's action will doubtless depend to some extent on the way in which the judges carefully consider Madam Speaker's important ruling in the House yesterday.
I believe that I carry the right hon. Member for Yeovil with me when I say that we must ratify the Maastricht treaty. It cannot be right for this country to go on putting brakes on the development of the European Community. As an extremely powerful trading bloc, it is now far and away our most important partner in the trade which forms such a large part of our livelihood in this country.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has constantly said, we wish to be in the forefront of the discussions which lie immediately ahead on the widening of the European Community—on the joining of the four, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria, all of whom should join quite quickly in the months ahead. We also need to be party to the discussions within the Community about the attitude of the EC to the still unfinished GATT round.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House should remember that the next governmental conference is only three years away. There is a great deal of preparatory work to be done for that conference to continue the task of widening the Community. If we do not ratify the treaty, how can we be at the forefront in those important negotiations?
I hope that this will be the last time the House indulges in antics of the sort that we have seen in recent months while discussing this European treaty. I use the word, "antics" advisedly, and I suggest that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East should listen for a moment, because perhaps he will agree with me. I shall not mince my words. I regard the unattractive alliance between Labour and Liberal and a handful of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches to force through a commitment to the social chapter as parliamentary horseplay.
I listened to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and I am sorry that he is no longer present. He and I were in a short television debate this morning. He used high-minded language about the sanctity of Parliament and the huge constitutional issues involved in this debate today—talk that was echoed by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East in his closing remarks. I do not think that the unsavoury alliance that I have described does any credit to the mother of Parliaments—to me, it is much more reminiscent of a Whitehall farce in which Brian Rix might play a part.
Yesterday Madam Speaker gave a ruling of very great importance, which was basically a warning to the courts not to interfere in the legislative process of the House of Commons. The ruling emphasised again the supreme position in law-making of this House. I find it very hard to understand how that ruling is compatible in moral terms with the short-sighted politicking that we are seeing in connection with the social chapter.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said during Business questions today that the Government should concentrate on providing jobs. I could not agree with him more, but at the heart of my argument is my belief that if the majority of the House is against the social chapter it is simply because it is an engine of unemployment. The hon. Member for Bolsover may be a surprising ally, but I hope that on that basis he will join me in the Lobby tonight in voting against the social chapter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The reason why I talk about jobs is that, in the period the Government have been in office, about 3 million people have been thrown out of work, social chapter or no social chapter. Every pit in my constituency has been closed. The shipyards have been closed. The fishing fleets have been almost destroyed. The industrial base has been decimated. That is why I talk about jobs. The Tory Government are responsible.

Mr. Renton: It is a great pity that I gave way to the hon. Member for Bolsover, because he has not said anything to do with the social chapter or with the European Community.
My last point is a somewhat personal postscript. In recent days and weeks, as someone who was Chief Whip during Lady Thatcher's last year of government, I have often been asked for my comments on the whipping of Members in relation to this Act, as it now is, on the Maastricht treaty. I know that the job of Chief Whip is a lonely one, and I have very great sympathy with my right hon. Friend the present Patronage Secretary. As I have said in answer to those questions, however, the problem facing the Chief Whip and the Government Whips Office in the past few weeks is unique in my experience of nearly 20 years in the House.
Not long ago, Lord Pym—our Chief Whip during the passage of the European Communities Act 1972—told me how, during the passage of that Act, he and Neil Marten, who led the dissidents on the Tory side, met regularly to talk about tactics and how to handle the business. There was never any question of the dissidents, for example, voting against Government motions on time, or voting for business to go on after 10 o'clock. There was certainly never any question of the dissidents voting for additions to the European Communities Bill in which they did not believe, and which they would not have been honest in supporting, simply in order to embarrass the Government.
It is impossible for me to find an exact analogy, therefore, to the problems that we have seen in the last few weeks. I can only think, with a good deal of sorrow, of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1940, when those who were against communism joined those who were for communism in a very dishonourable alliance. That pact proved disastrous. The implacable enemies became partners. It was a pact based on wholly dishonest considerations.
Any pact forged today which resulted in the House, against its better judgment and against its natural majority, voting for the social chapter would similarly lead to disaster—disaster, above all, for this country, because it would lead not to more jobs on low wages but to higher unemployment on no wage and total dependence on social security benefits.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) did not give way, because he gave the lie to, and showed the fraudulent nature of, the argument that lay at the heart of the Prime Minister's speech. It is the Prime Minister's weakness in this matter that has led him to the position that he is now in. He has never, throughout the passage of the Act, been prepared to articulate a single message. He has always played the part of the Whip, not the Prime Minister. That is exactly what he is doing in this debate, and, having spent so much time in his speech attacking me, he could at least, I believe, have been here now to listen to what I have to say.
As usual, our Prime Minister, who ought to be giving a lead to the nation, is telling two different parts of the House two different things. To his hon. Friends he says that this is a debate about the social chapter; but to us on this side of the House he says that this is a debate about ratification. Nothing could have made it more clear.
Since the Prime Minister is not in his seat now, perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what we will be voting on tonight. His hon. Friends would like to know. The Prime Minister has told them that we are voting tonight for the social chapter, but he told me that we would be voting for ratification. The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex made it quite clear what he thought: he thought that we would be voting for the social chapter.
I will happily give way to the Minister, who represents the Prime Minister. Will he tell us, when we vote tonight, shall we be voting for the social chapter or for ratification?

Mr. David Hunt: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there will be two votes at the conclusion of this debate. The first vote will be on an amendment, which I understand he supports, that would impose the social protocol, which he has criticised on so many occasions. The second vote will then be in accordance with the motion on the Order Paper. As I understand it, there is a motion on the Order Paper provided the amendment is defeated.
The question which the Prime Minister put to the right hon. Gentleman, and which he had not yet answered—[Interruption.] No. I am just putting the point to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order, Interventions should be exceedingly short.

Mr. Ashdown: The House and the nation will have noticed, of course, that the Minister has not answered the question. We know perfectly well that both the motion and the amendment tonight are about the social chapter. We know beyond peradventure that the debate is not about ratification because Ministers—from the Foreign Secretary to the Prime Minister—have told us that. They have told us bluntly that, whatever the House does, they will go ahead and ratify anyway, so this is about the social chapter. That is why it is consistent to vote in the second Division in the same way as we vote in the first one, and so we shall do. We will vote on every occasion that we get—

Mr. Peter Shore: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am in the 10-minute Bill, so I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The 10-minute Bill?

Mr. Ashdown: The 10-minute rule.
We will vote tonight, and on every subsequent occasion, to give Britain the best opportunity to have the benefits of the social chapter for our economy and our work force. That is what we will do tonight.
It should come as no surprise to the Government that we will do that. We made a manifesto commitment, which has been repeated in speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Ministers in private that that is our position.
The Prime Minister has no right to say—as he said recently—that he is bewildered about our position. That is a misrepresentation and he knows it. There are all sorts of reasons why our Prime Minister might be bewildered, but he cannot be bewildered about our position, and we will vote tonight consistent with that.

Mr. David Howell: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman will speak in a moment. I have only 10 minutes, so I hope that he will forgive me.
I would prefer to vote for our amendment. Voting for the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is our only way of expressing our commitment to the social chapter and reincorporation.
That does not mean that we do not have some reservations about the social chapter. I do not resile from a single word that I have said. We have reservations about articles 4 and 2·4, which seem to provide a mechanism to bypass democratic institutions of the European Community. We have reservations about all sorts of European legislation. We have reservations about Maastricht, just as the Prime Minister has.
But the whole point—as the Prime Minister clearly said with as much passion as he was able to summon—is that it is important that we are in the social institutions and shaping them, not outside. His speech made a wonderful statement about how it is important to be in Europe. It did not seem to be a speech that much supported the idea of opt-outs from Europe.
As a result of the way in which this matter has been portrayed by both the Government and the Labour party, we have made the social chapter into something that,


frankly, it is not. It is not the great new monster of socialism stalking across Europe which the Government try to persuade us to believe it is. Nor is it the archangel of socialism about to return us to the 1970s, as the Labour party would have us believe. It is an anodyne statement of broad intent. Those who examine the social chapter in the treaty of Rome, to which we subscribe, aided and strengthened by Baroness Thatcher with the Single European Act, will see that there is remarkably little difference between the two.
The social chapter simply codifies the established best practices of most modern British firms and almost all successful ones. Therefore, we take the view that on balance it is good for the country and our work force. If there is a move to a better understanding of the dangers of corporatism in Europe among the Germans—as there is —the French and the Portuguese, that is no reason to be outside it, as the Prime Minister argued. It is a reason to be inside it, helping to mobilise that movement and reshape the social chapter.
The Government have two reasons why they should not be in the social chapter. The first reason—the Prime Minister laboured this point—is that it would make Britain uncompetitive. However, most of our firms, certainly all the successful ones, already exceed the terms of the social chapter. They already go further than the social chapter in the way in which they treat their work force.
The Prime Minister invited us to talk to business. I did. Three weeks ago, I went to Toyota, which has made a massive investment near Derby. I asked about the secret of its success. Toyota is the most successful car manufacturer in the world. I asked the managing director, who took me round, "What is the secret of your success?" He said, "The secret of our success is that we value our work force. We recognise that our work force are our most important asset. We invest in our work force. We provide them with terms and conditions that will keep them. Those terms and conditions far exceed the terms of the social chapter." I asked, "Why do you succeed in the market place?" He said, "Because we provide quality goods. It is quality that wins in the market place. You cannot produce quality goods unless you have a quality work force." That is what the social chapter is all about. This is not inimical to success; it is the secret of success.
There are only two ways for this country to go. We may choose to become a low wage, low investment, low skill and low technology industry. That is what we may choose as our industrial base. I warn the Prime Minister that, if that is what he wants our country to be, we will have miserable years ahead. If we go in that direction, many emerging countries in eastern Europe and elsewhere will do it better and cheaper than us. That is the way to poverty in this nation.
Alternatively, we may choose to go down the other route. We may choose to be a high value-added, high skill, high investment and high wage economy. There is no way that the country will assure its future prosperity other than by taking that route. That is what the social chapter is about.
The second part of the Government's case is that we cannot afford to give our workers decent standards. The Government could not have revealed the poverty of their aspirations more powerfully than by telling British workers that they cannot afford to provide the terms and conditions that will be enjoyed by workers in Greece and

Portugal. Is that what we are saying to the people of our country? is that what we are saying the Government will create? They will create an economy in which our workers will not even have the rights of workers in Greece and Portugal. God forbid if that is where we are going.
The reality of this is clear. It has nothing to do with the good of British industry and British jobs; it has everything to do with the divisions in the Conservative party. The Prime Minister had to return from Europe with a piece of paper in his hand that he could wave at Conservative Back Benchers. This is what it was all about: game, set and match in an attempt to unite the Conservative party, but lose, lose and lose for the country. The Prime Minister is more a Whip than a leader. He is more concerned about uniting his divided party than in providing the country with a stable basis for future prosperity.
Workers who have lost their jobs, their businesses and their homes as a result of the Government's recession must now lose their rights because of the divisions in the Conservative party. That is what it boils down to in the end. We will vote for the social chapter as the best way of ensuring that Britain and British workers have the rights, the abilities and the advantages of it.
There is a majority in the House for the Maastricht treaty, and there is a majority in the House for the social chapter. It takes a Government of this bungling ineptitude never to be able to mobilise the treaty or the social chapter. That is the reason why the Prime Minister and the Government are in the mess that they are in tonight. I hope that the vote is carried. If it is carried, we expect the Prime Minister to obey it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker has ruled that speeches from now until 8 pm shall last for 10 minutes only.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I shall not follow the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in his by-electioneering speech. because there is not enough time to go into it.
I am convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's reliance on Toyota as a typical example of the problems now faced by British industrialists. To pick out an international company, which was established here on a green-field site and which negotiates successful deals with its work force, and claim that its position is similar to that of Rolls-Royce, GKN or any other major British company competing in the world market, distorts the truth. The Leader of the Opposition also distorted the truth with his reliance on the example of Nissan.
If what the right hon. Member for Yeovil and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) say is true, how do they account for the fact that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and all employers who have appeared before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry have been unanimous in their belief that the costs that the social chapter would impose upon their businesses would be ruinous to our search for competitiveness in Europe or elsewhere?
We must judge British industry on the basis of international competition. We must recognise that we face the fiercest competition that we have yet to encounter from


the far east and the Pacific rim. The trend in Europe is to make European industry less competitive. I believe that that experience will show the the Europeans, through their enforcement of the social chapter, are in grave danger of saddling themselves with costs that will make them progressively less and less competitive.
What also impressed me in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was his apparent belief that the social chapter would be good for employment prospects. I do not know what particular section of industry or work force are likely to benefit if we do as the Opposition amendment obliges us to do.
I appreciate that the enforcement of the social chapter may lead to more employment for bureaucrats and trade union negotiators. It might also give a lot more employment to lawyers, and I can see that that must be dear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's heart. However, I cannot see any way in which the social chapter will increase productive employment. We do not need to give it such a boost, given the improvements to working practice that are constantly being achieved in our efficient industries.
I do not find either of the cases deployed by the Opposition parties particularly convincing. I do not see how the amendment, were it to be carried tonight, could have the effect that it claims. There is certainly a majority in this House and in the other place in favour of the Maastricht treaty. We have the figures to prove that, and they have been quoted more than once.
The House has only given my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the power to ratify the treaty that he signed. If he were required by the House to seek to amend it, he would be unable to do so. A new treaty would have to be negotiated, and the House of Commons would have to give my right hon. Friend new powers.
What makes today's debate such a curiosity is that, in practical terms, it does nothing. It does not empower the Prime Minister to import the social chapter into our law. The House of Commons alone can do that. I am fairly sure —I believe that all my colleagues on the Conservative Benches would probably agree with me—that, if a Bill were brought before the House to impose a new social chapter treaty, it would be defeated on its Second Reading.
The debate is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The only possible explanation of the position in which we find ourselves today is that an unholy alliance, on the part of some of my hon. Friends, is seeking to wreck the Maastricht treaty and prevent its ratification. I regret that. If they said that that was not part of their intention, their words would be believed. Should they join the Opposition in the Lobby tonight, however, I doubt that they could possibly say that there is no intention to wreck the Maastricht treaty. I see no sign of dissent from my view.

Mr. William Cash: I am only too delighted to intervene on my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Labour amendment does not in any way impose the social chapter upon the United Kingdom? Furthermore, under the wording of that amendment, it is merely a question of whether the Government were to notify their intention, which they clearly would not do.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I am sorry that I gave way, because I knew that my hon. Friend would be long-winded.

[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend reads the amendment, he will see that it states that the Government should not ratify the treaty unless and until they have done what is stipulated under the amendment. If the Opposition amendment is not a wrecking one, I do not know a wrecking amendment when I see one. The objectives that my hon. Friends seek to achieve are, similarly, wrecking objectives. I believe that they intend to leave the House without a resolution tonight, which would be thoroughly—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.

Sir Cranley Onslow: That would be cynical and unscrupulous. It is clear from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that that is their intention.
That takes me back to the real point at issue. There is a majority in the House in favour of the treaty. If the majority in the House goes against the Government, the stipulation in the treaty will make it impossible—

Mr. Cash: It is stipulated in an Act of Parliament.

Sir Cranley Onslow: That Act of Parliament makes it impossible for the Government to seek to ratify the treaty, because no resolution has been reached.
The whole purpose of the unholy alliance into which my hon. Friends have entered is simply to wreck the ratification of the treaty.

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Cranley Onslow: No, I am bound by the time constraint.
I do not believe that Parliament should allow itself to be abused and twisted in this way. The simple facts are straight. There is a majority in the House in favour of the treaty—

Sir Teddy Taylor: But not in the country.

Sir Cranley Onslow: The power to ratify that treaty has been given to the Government by the House. That is what we need and that is what we should do. There should be no further messing about.

Mr. Peter Shore: Two issues will be decided tonight: a minor one and a major one.
The minor issue is the social chapter, and the major one is the entire Maastricht treaty. More precisely, the minor issue is whether the agreement attached to the protocol on social policy should be adopted or rejected. The major issue is whether the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which enacts most of the Maastricht treaty—the treaty of union—should come into force.
The social chapter is the minor issue, for a number of reasons. I fully understand why, however, those on both sides of the House who have spoken have tended to exaggerate its effects. The Prime Minister made it very clear that it would ruin British industry and destroy jobs. I am afraid that some in the Labour party would have people believe that vast benefits will be bestowed upon working people in Britain as a result of the social chapter. Not so. It will do neither.
The social chapter will have a barely discernible effect, for three reasons. First, let us consider the most direct item of cost—wages and salaries. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, wages, salaries and benefits are explicitly excluded from the social chapter. They will not be affected one iota by it.
There will be no effect on the right of association, the right to strike, and the right to impose lock-outs—all of which could significantly affect collective bargaining and therefore pay, wages and salaries. Those issues will not be affected by the social chapter, because they are excluded from it.
Secondly, one may ask about non-wage cash benefits. Social security payments, national insurance contributions, social protection of workers generally, redundancy pay and compensation for the termination of contracts need not cause any worries. Any change to any of them would require unanimity of voting and that is subject to the veto.
Thirdly, what about indirect costs? Those costs include control over working hours, night-time working, paid holidays, leave and pay for pregnant women, and the employment of children and young workers under the age of 18. They are important matters, but the social chapter does not deal with them. They are neither included nor excluded, because they are already enacted under article 118A of the European Communities Act 1972, as amended by the Single European Act. They are already imposed in full or in part on the United Kingdom by qualified majority voting.
The costs and benefits proposed in the social chapter are minimal.
The other non-work force factors that influence productivity and unit costs that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned—Management efficiency, innovation, the quality of products and capacity utilisation—are so small that what can be done under the social chapter defies measurement.
There was once a fairly plausible case against the social chapter: that any increase in costs might affect a country whose productivity was very low. However, that possible effect was under a fixed exchange rate system. Since 14 September 1992, when the pound floated free, there has been no problem whatever of competitiveness arising out of the social chapter.
The argument on the grounds that it would impose crippling costs on British industry is entirely bogus. Equally bogus is the argument that it would provide measurable benefits for people at work in Britain. It is what The Guardian in its leader column yesterday called "a waffling irrelevance", which applies to both sides of the argument.
We all know why the Government, and to some extent my right hon. Friends, have attached so much importance to the social chapter. We well know that the Government have not had an easy time with the Maastricht treaty. There are many things in the treaty that Conservative Members find it difficult to swallow. Therefore, the social chapter was brought back as a great prize, not only because we opted out, but, I regret to say, to appeal to the more primitive instincts of the Conservative party. It was waved about as a banner.
The Maastricht treaty is not very popular with Labour Members and among those who have read it and understood it. Labour party members and our supporters have not yet understood that what is proposed, which the

Front-Bench spokesmen of my party have accepted, is that it entails the handover of the powers of economic decision-making to unelected bodies in Europe. They have not yet understood that it will allow those bodies to decide the Chancellor's Budget and his borrowing requirement, it will abolish the Bank of England as a nationalised industry and hand it over to a totally independent European central bank that will decide the interest rates and exchange rates of our country.
The Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen and our shadow Chancellor need to offer something in return to the British people. That is why they too have given such exaggerated importance to the social chapter; a little something, a little bit of sugar to cover the bitter pill of the surrender of serious economic powers.
So much for the minor issue, now for the major one: the treaty itself. I read Madam Speaker's splendid ruling yesterday when she dealt with the possible challenge by the courts to the supremacy of Parliament. She quoted the words of the Bill of Rights.:
freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
I agree with every word. I repeat the words:
proceedings … ought not to be impeached or questioned … in any court or place out of Parliament.
The British courts or Whitehall is not the primary threat to Parliament. That threat is massively present in the treaties of the European Community that proclaim the supremacy of Community law over British law, and in its courts of justice that can and do strike down and render nugatory any Act of this Parliament that conflicts with European law. Through the Maastricht treaty, it will massively extend its powers to large new areas of policies, including the ultimate power of imposing fines on this country if its rulers dared to pursue policies contrary to those imposed by the European Community.
All this and more is at the heart of the Maastricht treaty. That is the major matter, and to resist that further encroachment of powers should be the aim of all hon. Members who cast their votes tonight.

Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made many excellent points in his powerful opening speech, but he never spoke a truer word than when he said that, since the time of the signing of the Maastricht treaty, the argument has changed throughout Europe. He is completely right to say that many of the issues considered at the time of the signing of the treaty as British eccentricities and doubts have how become universally agreed and actively supported by the policy makers of Europe as they face totally new conditions.
In many ways, the doubters of Maastricht—heaven knows, that included the British Government throughout the 1980s and even at the signing and the negotiating of the treaty—have won the argument. We have listened over long nights and weeks to my hon. Friends the so-called "Tory rebels". They have shown courage, and they have fought the good fight in their corner, and I respect that.
In a way they have won the argument, not to their desired extent of stopping the ratification of the treaty, but in having validly and accurately pointed out the absurdities of the high, complete Maastricht doctrine and


its dangers. Yesterday's editorial of the Wall Street Journal said that the old taboos of European union—the gobbledegook and the Euro-speak—have been smashed.
It is curious, although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cannot say it himself, that he has been one of the most effective Euro-rebels. His vision and that of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, proposed against a storm of sneers and opposition from the party opposite and many others in Europe at the time of the Maastricht treaty, has gained ground.
Now every banker says that monetary union will not come about and that it is an absurd idea, but they did not say it then. Now every commentator says that the Maastricht treaty has many over-centralising elements and that we must decentralise. The great idea of subsidiarity was dragged up somehow to counteract the trends of Maastricht, but the over-centralising elements were not noted at the time, either. Further summits were needed to establish a completely new mood.
It would be comical if it were not tragic to see the great British Labour party once again climbing too late on the bandwagon of yesterday's causes. It brought the whole Maastricht package, and that is now out of date. Europe is facing completely different problems.
We all know perfectly well—this is the main reason why I want to see the treaty ratified and to get on with things —that, as soon as the treaty is ratified, we shall move on to new ground. We shall not merely seek amendments to the Maastricht treaty, or merely wait until 1996—that is much too long—but we shall look for amendments to the Single European Act, as the Maastricht treaty itself does, and for amendments to the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howell: I do not have time, although I respect my hon. Friend's view.
Many of the issues that have recently been debated will form the basis for a new agenda and new treaties that will begin to head Europe in the right direction. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw months and years ago. He has led the way, and that has been the growing theme throughout the rest of Europe.
We know that the vision of Europe resting on the nation states, with a huge return of powers from the Community machinery and institutions to the nation states, with far tighter controls on the central machinery, such as the Council of Ministers and the Commission, and with the entrenchment of the rights of nation states with carefully circumscribed power only to the central authorities needed to run the common, free and open market, are now the common aspirations and the mood of more and more Europeans. We know that, in the larger Europe that is coming, more Europeans will welcome the great European confederation of nation states which replaces the old-fashioned centralised ideas which were too prevalent at Maastricht.
I should like to see the Government not sitting around and saying that they have reached a point where it is all too difficult, and that we must wait until 1996. I should like to see all hon. Members, and certainly my right hon. Friends, visit present and future members of the enlarged Community and bring home to them the new agenda for

which we intend to push and gain agreement right through Europe, with more decentralisation—a confederal commonwealth of Europe based on the nation state.
Although my hon. Friends, the famous rebels, fight on, theirs is in a sense yesterday's battle. They would be ill advised to ignore the advice of many wise people outside this House; they should not listen only to other Members of Parliament. They should see where they should now stand and how they should consolidate what they have gained. They should help to build the better Europe that we all want to see, instead of the old, centralised Europe.
There is some glorious confusion about social policy, which was shown especially in the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He does not understand that social policy at European level is based on two legislative origins. It is based on the social chapter, which is the social provisions in the treaty of Rome, which have been largely accepted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has signed up to them.
Britain is the leading country in implementing those provisions. From the list supplied by the European Commission, it can be seen that we are the only country that has applied all the EC social directives since we joined the European Community. Every other country, including Belgium, which is always lecturing us on these matters, and Germany, which tells us that we are dumbheads and do not understand the social dimension, has noncompliance written against its name. Britain is the only country of the 12 that has complied in all circumstances, except in two in which the appropriateness of compliance is being questioned. Every other country is a non-complier.
We have accepted the social chapter; that is not an argument. The social chapter covers a range of important issues concerned with health and safety at work, the equal treatment of men and women, rights at work, the free movement of workers and a variety of important social issues. We accept all that, although it is absurd that it should be done from so remote and central a place as Brussels.
What we question is something quite different, which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did not seem to understand. We question the social charter, which was put together in December 1989 and which formed the basis of the protocol which is now in the Maastricht treaty. More and more people in Europe are realising that that great move on from the normal social provisions in the Rome treaty and in the Single European Act is largely unnecessary, and increasingly out of date.
My right hon. and hon. Friends need no lectures from anybody about the implementation of either European social policy or of national social policy. We are entitled to lecture in return that the case for social policy being dictated centrally and uniformly is absurdly out of date. The whole mood now is for more flexibility, and for more differentiation and variety between the nation states.
The real problem of Europe which the policy makers now face is not the social protocol, which is an out-of-date and unnecessary concept. The real problem is competitiveness, which is draining away throughout Europe, to the point where we are finding it difficult to sustain our living standards, let alone improve them. The real problem is the 19 million unemployed throughout Europe, half of whom have been unemployed for more than a year.
The social protocol thinking and the detail of it are not wrong because they do not sound good. Of course the


social protocol sounds good, and it appeals to Opposition Members. It is wrong not because low wages are good and because we want to make this a low-wage economy. It is wrong because lower overheads are essential throughout Europe if we are to begin to compete and to enable our present social standards to be maintained.
I read a document produced by the Labour-supported Commission for Social Justice, which began with a call for Britain to wake up in social matters. Opposition Members should listen to that message. This nation should wake up if we are to maintain, let alone to advance, our capacity to provide social provision and a high-wage economy.
High wages must be earned by much harder work, by a much tighter control of social overheads, and by moving away from the placid idea that the whole of Europe can have long weekends while Asia does not have weekends at all. We have to have far tougher schooling, we have to work longer hours and we must now move in the 1990s into a far more dedicated and hard-working environment if we are to maintain our existing social entitlements, let alone have all the fat, generous layer of entitlements which are promised but cannot be delivered by the social protocol.
Japanese children are told in school, right from the beginning, when they are three or four years old, that no one owes them a living. They are told that they must save, encourage investment and work extremely hard because no one in the world owes them a living. They are told that they must compete.
That is the social and compassionate message that should come from those concerned with jobs, with employment and with the prosperity of the people of Europe, especially the people of this island. That is the message that we should hear instead of the out-of-date absurdity of a social protocol that belongs to yesterday.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The major aspect of the social dimension is the scale of unemployment that we are experiencing in Europe. It is a major problem, and action is needed if we are not to impair our competitiveness as we move into the 21st century, with the burden of 16 million or 17 million unemployed people, and if we are not to damage the fabric of our society.
The challenge is to be able to maintain a balance between improving our society through our social policy and social fabric, and retaining the competitiveness of our industries. The social chapter provides a framework for creating social policies. There are no rules that one cannot sack people or change wages under the social policy as it is written. The social chapter also extends majority voting.
To arrive at new policies that will determine what costs there will he on industry and the sort of social fabric we have involves a long consultative process. However, the decisions will be made by the Council of Ministers. There is nothing in Maastricht that will increase the overhead costs of business, as some hon. Members have claimed. They will be determined later through the Council of Ministers.
I have a little confidence in the Council of Ministers. I believe that it will take into account the changes that have emanated throughout Europe since the treaty was written. We have had the recession. Unemployment has gone up since the treaty was written. The target dates for economic

and monetary union must have changed. There is now a Conservative Government in France and a right-wing Government in Italy.
We also have the Commission's document, "Community-Wide Framework for Employment" which was sent by the Commission to the Social Affairs Committee. That document drew unfavourable comparisons between EC growth and employment and growth and employment in the United States and in Japan. The latest statement from the European Convention in Copenhagen made some comments on that. All hon. Members must take that into account if we are being realistic. All the changes are creating an atmosphere among member states. They realise that they have to be a bit more wary, and that they must not be wild about social policy or wild in other ways, because of the costs involved.

Mr. Iain Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall: I will not give way, because I do not have time.
The key to our competitiveness is to reduce the burden of unemployment and to create jobs in high-tech areas. I welcome the Commission's proposals to do that, whereas I find the Government's approach of just reducing labour costs rather pathetic. The Commission's proposals for reducing unemployment are comprehensive and very good. They contrast markedly with the way in which the Government are going about the matter.
What are the implications of signing the social chapter? Signing does not in itself commit us to any change in our employment legislation or to any measures that could, even theoretically, reduce our competitiveness. That contrasts strongly with the line put by the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) who gave no specific example of how costs would be raised.
All that would do is extend areas of the EC labour laws where the EC already has competence, and extend areas that can be decided by majority vote. The new powers will depend ultimately on the Council of Ministers and the direction that member states collectively decide they should follow in the future. I have sensed a changing mood from certain people to whom I have spoken. The panic from the Government, who think that everything must be screwed down, and that we must go back to low tech and low wages, is absurd. The mood within the EC is that we must be more wary.
There are reasons why the signing of the social chapter may not have the dire impact on competitiveness that some have predicted. The social chapter covers areas where decisions are made by qualified majority voting Those areas involve safety, working conditions, information and consultation with workers, equality for men and women and matters of labour market inequalities. I have spent 25 years in business and in industry, and no business man would be afraid of that. To all intents and purposes, it would have a nil effect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to social security, the social protection of workers and the termination of employment contracts and the representation and collective defence of the interests of workers when they are unemployed. There is a long list, which I cannot go through.
I believe that many of those areas would undoubtedly increase industrial costs if we were to go wild in Europe. I do not believe that we will go wild, but if we did, the Government could have a veto. The Government's opt-out may have lost that influence, and I regret that. Other issues, such as pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose a lock-out are not even included in the social legislation.
Another reason why signing the social chapter may not make much difference is that many of its powers already exist under the treaty of Rome, and were extended by the Single European Act. Those are social powers that have been agreed within the Conservative party and the Government, and all the major decisions have been taken.
For example, the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women was opposed by the Government, as it supposed to increase costs. That is absurd, and has now been included in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. The draft directive on the working time limit of 48 hours will probably become legislation, contrary to what the Minister has said. Both the examples have nothing to do with the social chapter. The fact that both measures were opposed shows the rather pathetic priorities of the Government.
The Prime Minister played on the argument that, if Britain is within the social dimension, we will be in a position to be involved in the drafting of social chapter measures. The Government will not be in that position now. If one looks at the 1989 social action programme, however, one can see that it did work as far as the Government's priorities were concerned. The pregnant women directive reduced the measure from full pay to sick pay, and changes will also occur in the legislation for the 48-hour working week. The Government can do it if they want. I see no reason why Conservative Members are afraid of the social chapter, which will have little impact.
I should like the Minister to respond to another point made by the Prime Minister, who said emphatically that we must be in the heart of Europe to be able to influence things. I know of certain United Kingdom multinational companies which have pointed out that, without the United Kingdom influence which will now be lost because of the opt-out, social policy will be determined by the other 11 member states.
That policy will be implemented in the branches of those companies on the continent. In practice, however, the United Kingdom will have to carry out the policy that has been agreed by the other 11. There must be some uniformity within a company. I refer to multinationals, which are large companies.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a great pleasure for me that you have called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful. It is 22 years ago this week that I had the pleasure of resigning from a Conservative Government to oppose this country joining the EC. I know that you were still at school at the time, but it is interesting to look back 22 years to see what I was saying. I was, of course, regarded as mad by most people.
I said that our joining the EC would have an adverse ect on trade. We have had a deficit in our trade with rope since then of £100,000 million. I thought that our

joining would mean, unfortunately, that we would not be able to solve the problem of food prices, and that the poor would be hit. We know that the common agricultural policy is now wholly out of control, and no one can do anything about it.
I thought that our joining would destroy the Anglo-American alliance. We can see how our friendship and co-operation with the USA has been undermined almost every day. I said that our joining would destroy jobs, and we can see that Europe's share of world trade is going down and down. Jobs are being destroyed, and people are suffering. Finally, of course, I said that our democracy would be undermined. It has been, largely by the treaty of Rome, and it will be more so if the Maastricht treaty goes through.
As one of the few remaining rebels, I shall not be voting for the amendment, because I am in favour of the social chapter. The amendment does not say that, but rather that it will not be possible to ratify the treaty until the Government say that they want to sign the social chapter. Should I worry? Far from it. We had the clearest statement from the Chancellor during the Budget speech that Britain would never sign the social chapter.
The Government—I am sure that those on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State for Employment will agree—are never to sign the social chapter, and the amendment says that there can be no ratification until the Government say they are to agree to the social chapter. Is not that the ideal thing for someone to vote for who does not like the Maastricht treaty?
In fairness, I do not see why everyone is so worried about the social chapter. I have heard hon. Members say that it would cost us millions, and that it would put up costs because there would be a 48-hour working week. As has been found throughout the treaty, that is a load of rubbish. There is hardly anything in the social chapter whatsoever. The only new provision relates to social security, and it is subject to unanimity. There are three small items, one relating to men and women, that are already covered by the court through the majority voting.
If any hon. Member is worried about majority voting, he should look at the Maastricht treaty. There he would see massive areas such as visas, youth training, trans-European networks, telecommunications, distortion of competition, health, education, culture, third-world development, consumer protection and cohesion. For all those, majority voting will be introduced. If the Minister, who seems to be happy, is worried about majority voting, let him worry about all of it that is contained in the Maastricht treaty, which is destroying the basis of our democracy.
The sad fact is that, on the social chapter, there has been flag-waving between the parties. The Conservatives have been saying that it is a dreadful thing, and were not we glad that they had got us out of it? Labour said that, because the Conservatives had got us out of it. it must somehow be a good thing. I wish there had been some honesty in debate.
Both sides should have accepted that there is precious little in the social chapter at all. The only new thing relates to social security and is subject to unanimity, and a small extension of majority voting. Even in those areas, I believe that the EC will use the powers contained in the Single European Act.
You must be fed up hearing my speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you are a patient man. I remind you


that, during debates on the Bill, I asked the Government six times to tell me anything that could be brought in under the social chapter that could not have already been brought in under the Single Europe Act or the treaty of Rome. I have not had an answer. It is clear, however, that some hon. Members—despite assurances from me, and although they have not had the pleasure of reading the Maastricht treaty—are worried about the social chapter. If they are worried about the social chapter and if, by a remote chance, we are successful in carrying the amendment—I and possibly one other rebel remain—they should join me in voting the main motion down. I shall be glad to do it because, as the Government have said so often, they are worried about the social chapter.
We should worry more about ratification. That is what the amendment is about. We should ask ourselves what right we have to say that ratification should go ahead when the treaty surrenders vast powers of our democracy. We hear the Labour party and the Conservative party shouting at election time about their economic policy. If Maastricht is ratified, the same thing will happen even if the Communist party or the National Front wins the next election. Economic policy will be laid down by central institutions, and there will be nothing that we can do about it.
Some people, particularly people in the Whips Office, are hopeful. People say, "We know that it has gone wrong. We know that is is a mess. But we now have a new Administration who will change things." I appeal to them to ask themselves how the Government can change things. We know that half the member states of the European Community receive a great deal of money from it. Only a small number, including Britain, put money in. Where is the incentive for change?
Even if people doubt me and remain hopeful because the people in Europe are all nice people who want to do nice things, I ask them to consider where the progress is on the common agricultural policy. Time and time again in the House, I have heard Agriculture Ministers say that they have achieved a new formula, new arrangements and reform. They say that things will be better. Every single year it gets worse and worse. Today, the food mountains are the highest that they have ever been. The expenditure next year will be about £6 billion more than it was last year.
Sadly, the consumers and the poor people—the people we should worry about—face extra costs of £20 a week. If we believe that reform is possible, why has it not happened with the CAP? I ask those who say that we can reform the Community why we should pass over all the power and extra money to the EC without stopping to think.
The tragedy of the treaty and of the debate tonight is that the parties have grown apart from the people. If one asks people whether they believe that Maastricht will do good or harm, the majority will probably say that they do not like it, and that they want a referendum. I believe that it will undermine our country and our democracy if we shove through a massive new transfer of power and money without asking the people what they think.
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember the issue at stake. Let us not have silly, squalid arguments about the social chapter. The social chapter is basically meaningless compared with what we have already handed over. The real issue is that we simply  not have the right to hand over huge freedoms and ntrols to boards, commissions and councils without

asking the people first. That is the issue for tonight. That is why I shall vote for the amendment, in the firm and secure knowledge that the Government do not want the social chapter. Let us all vote for an amendment which proposes no ratification without the social chapter.
The Maastricht treaty will increase protectionism. It will be bad for jobs and bad for people. It will increase the amount of money that we hand over to Europe. It will be bad for poor people and for employees. It will increase the costs of production in Britain. That will destroy jobs. Having listened to all the debates on the treaty, we should stop and think. The right thing for us to do is vote for the amendment and then vote against the motion, as amended. We should spend the summer period rethinking. The Government may say that they want to go ahead. They may do some deal with someone. That is a matter for them.
The Maastricht treaty is going through at a time of economic hardship for Britain and Europe. The EC seems to be getting worse in every possible way. At such a time, we should stop and think. After we have stopped and thought, we should ask the people. Let us remember that the power and freedom do not belong to us. They do not belong to thin or fat, old or young politicians. They belong to the people of Britain.
That is why we should vote for the amendment tonight. Let us remember that we have no right whatever to ratify or approve anything which involves a transfer of power unless we ask the people first. Let that be our intention tonight. Let us ask the people. Let us seek their views, and remember that the country belongs to them.

Mr. John Hume: Today's debate has obviously and understandably attracted a great deal of attention. The forecast that the vote will be close has focused attention on the smaller parties in the House and in particular on my honourable colleagues from Northern Ireland. It has been suggested that the Government may attempt to purchase their votes. I hope that my colleagues will be wise enough—as I know that they are—to recognise that if one is bought on Thursday, one can be sold on Monday. If the Government are prepared to engage in such unprincipled behaviour, they would not step back from doing so again on a future occasion.
However, I have been assured by Ministers that they are principled and that no offers of any description have been made to my honourable colleagues. It would be a serious mistake to deal with serious problems in my part of the world in that way. The only way in which we shall resolve those problems is to reach agreement on how we can respect our differences and work together for our common interests, which are considerable.
The debate this evening has great significance for my part of the world. As other hon. Members have said, the debate is not only about the social chapter but about European union. I am a strong supporter of the steady evolution towards European union. I should have thought that everyone in the Chamber wanted to see not only a united Europe but a united world and recognised that a united world was not a uniform world and a united Europe was not a uniform Europe. It is noticeable that those who oppose the steady evolution of European union have uniform minds and wish to impose their uniformity on society.
It is interesting to look at the people across Europe who join the so-called sceptics. They include the National Front in France, the neo-Nazis in Germany and the extreme communists. Those people believe in imposing their will on the rest of the people. That is the mind-set that created two world wars and imperialism. The world is still suffering from both. European union is emerging from that. It is a difficult process, but one that we should all pursue steadily.
When I speak about European union, I often ask people to cast their minds back 50 years. For the second time in a century, bombs were falling everywhere across Europe and 35 million people lay dead. If someone had said then, "Don't worry—in 50 years we shall be in this Chamber voting for European union among those peoples," people would have said that that person should be locked up. The fact that we are moving towards European union is one of the great achievements of human history.
Conflict has been ended by the adoption of the simple principle that difference does not threaten us but enriches us. The answer to difference is not conflict or war. Nor is it to impose one's view on other people. It is acceptance and accommodation of difference. That is not an easy task. The peoples of eastern Europe are suffering severely today as a result of the mentality of uniformity which seeks to impose on them a certain view.
I find the Government's case on the social chapter difficult to understand. They have said that the approach to European union of staying out of the Community was a mistake. Now they propose staying out of the social chapter, leaving us behind again. That is something of a contradiction. I do not understand it.
Britain is one of the biggest contributors to the European Community. Britain has bought a first-class ticket, but asks that the poorer people of this land should not take full advantage of it. By rejecting the social chapter, the Government are telling people to buy a first-class ticket but to travel in the luggage compartment. The Government tell us that we suffered because we were not in the Community at the start. Shall we not suffer from not being included in the social chapter at the start, shaping the whole thing? We are told that by staying out of it we shall be more competitive. My part of the world has the lowest wage rates in the United Kingdom; it also has the highest unemployment. If we provide minimum wage rates for our working people, there is no logic in suggesting that that will create higher unemployment. The lowest wage rates and highest unemployment in my part of the world were there before the troubles started, so that argument does not stand up at all.
A more fundamental point is that in this day and age we are living through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world—the technological revolution. It is the biggest since the industrial revolution, and it is making a fundamental change in our whole way of life. In the industrial revolution, the real wealth was created by the labour and sweat of people; in today's technological revolution, wealth is being created by fewer and fewer people.
As a result, the role of the state in looking after the welfare of its people must totally change. At the end of the ty, if there is all the money and land in the world but no

human beings, then it will all blow away. We should care for human beings at every level of society. Unfortunately, the Government, with their Reaganomics and Thatcherism, are going in the direction of the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest, rather than going in the direction that we should be going, where the state takes much more responsibility for the welfare of all its people.
The social chapter is about ensuring that there are minimum wage levels, and that we care for the employed, the unemployed, the elderly and the sick. The whole concept of European union is that humanity transcends nationality, and that we have moved beyond the nation state and are living in an interdependent world. Unless we are in there at all levels, shaping that interdependent world, we shall lose out.

Mr. John Carlisle: I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—for whom I have great affection, not least because he is my parliamentary pair —will forgive me if I do not go down the line that he has taken.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's criticism of my hon. Friends and myself—the so-called Euro-sceptics—I should make it clear that we have no connection whatever with right-wing or far-left organisations in Europe, and we resent that accusation.

Mr. Hume: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
It is interesting to note that, as usual, most Conservative Members who are present are those of us who are suspicious of and opposed to the treaty. We have always attended in great numbers, and it is good to see so many here this evening.
I owe it to my hon. Friends and to the House to explain why I have decided to support the Government, and I do so with some pride. I was not bullied by the Whips; they did not delve into what is, after all, a pretty bland past to try to persuade me. I had an invitation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to attend at No. 10; I asked him to save the gin and tonic for later, because I had already decided to support the Government.
I remain totally opposed to the Maastricht treaty. I only wish that opportunities were still available for the House to reject the treaty. It appears at this stage that we are now virtually at the end of the road. It is perhaps not apt for us to vote for the social chapter purely on the basis of trying to postpone ratification of the treaty—which is not, of course, inevitable.
I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), but when he says that we are not voting for the social chapter, I know that if he were presented with an early-day motion by colleagues and asked to sign it, and the words of that early-day motion were the words on the Labour amendment, he would totally reject it. I cannot put my name to the amendment, or follow the Opposition into the Lobby.
My opposition to the treaty is know in the House and has been consistent. I was one of those hon. Members who declined to vote for the Single European Act, on both Second and Third Reading. There are people in the so-called sceptic mould who voted for that Act. That was


probably the start of our troubles, let alone the wretched treaty that the House has considered over the past few months.
I was critical of the Government, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister on their monetary line, the effect that that had on jobs in my constituency and the effect that the whole treaty will have on jobs and prospects in my constituency. My opposition to the treaty remains, and will remain throughout my parliamentary career, and I am representing the views of my constituents on that basis.
A wag asked me earlier whether I feel like Judas Iscariot at this particular time. I have received no pieces of silver, but if my body is found floating down the Thames at 10.15, so be it—although the Whips were anxious to make sure that it was 10.15 and not 9.15, so that I could be here to vote for the Government.
My main reason for supporting the Government and rejecting the social chapter is based on constituency experience and what the social chapter would do to businesses in my constituency. The classic case is the one that I cited earlier when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister allowed me to intervene. It is the case of a company that manufactures in my constituency but is so worried about its European set-up, and the manufacturing going on there, that it is seriously considering either closing down or withdrawing part of that manufacturing base in Europe because conditions and productivity in the United Kingdom were improving so much.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry; there is not enough time.
General Motors is the principal employer in my constituency. Earlier this week one of its executives told me about the cost of production and wages. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is not here to listen to this. The company's production and wages costs in Germany are $24·9 per hour; in the United Kingdom, they are $18·9 an hour. Before Opposition Members jump up and say that that is because we have sweated labour, let me add that the cost of production in the United States is $13·9 an hour. But the production lines in the United Kingdom are doing far better than both those major competitors.
If we adopt the social chapter tonight, by whatever means, it will be a devastating effect on a company like that in terms of increased costs, which we would then have to bear because of the social benefits that would have to be brought in under the terms of the social chapter—[Interruption.] It is unique for me to be barracked by my hon. Friends, who are some of my closest colleagues. I hope they will remain so after 10 o'clock. I remind them that, if the social chapter was adopted, this country would have a voice only by majority voting. As for social benefits, they will be brought in by those with their own interests at heart rather than the interests of the United Kingdom.
As to tactics, I understand my hon. Friends' intention, but I think that at this stage they are wrong. I apologise immediately to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr Cash) for describing it as futile—that was perhaps a little too strong$but in any parliamentary, policy or business argument, one can go so far and no further.
I feel that at this stage the ratification of the treaty ems almost inevitable; I bitterly regret that. As the Prime

Minister rightly said, there have been votes here and in another place and the Bill has been given Royal Assent. The Governmenet rightly assume that, even if Labour's amendment were passed—I sincerely hope that it is not —they could proceed with the treaty without the social chapter, and I support that. I do not want them to go ahead with the treaty, but if they must do so, it must be without the social chapter. They are entitled so to proceed as article 7 asks only for a resolution of the House.
I regret that there is no other way in which we can express our opposition to the treaty. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that the time has come to question our credibility as colleagues in this place, but I believe that we can take some pride and honour in the way in which we have changed the Government's mind.
In his speech to the 1922 Committee tonight, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged that we have come a long way and that we have fired many warnings shots across the Government, warning them that we must not again embark on such an exercise without the full-hearted consent of the Conservative Benches or the people.
Tonight's debate is purely on the social chapter. Those are the words on the Order Paper, which I believe will be voted on at 10 o'clock tonight and I want to reject them.

An hon. Member: You ratted last time.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The use of the word "rat" in this House is surely out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call Mr. Enright.

Mr. Derek Enright: The saddest feature of the debate has been Conservative Members' lack of idealism and vision, which was typified by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). What is this vision of Europe? What are we doing? We are having a penny arcade that pays no regard to ordinary human beings—to those who are essentially the citizens of Europe.
What is the social chapter that we have been debating this afternoon? I certainly did not recognise it. The Prime Minister once stigmatised it as socialism by the back door. It has been suggested that it is the means by which the bureaucracy in Brussels can get into our system and do terrible things. That completely fails to recognise the continental tradition of a proper relationship with workers.
I shall quote from 1891, from a document that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) certainly knows very well indeed, Rerum novarum. He is talking about hours that are too long to work, about wages that are too low, about the necessity to consult workers to see how things can be resolved, about the just wage and how families should be supported.
Forty years on, we have similar quotes. I shall quote from Quadragesimo anno:
In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family … But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong … It is intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost … Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately.


That is the whole spirit of two encyclicals. It is the whole spirit of the Christian Democratic Union, which has been joined by left-wing Conservative Members of the European Parliament. They feel extremely strongly about the matter and have said time and again that it is crucial that we should stay in the social chapter.
It is quite true that the social chapter, as it exists, is not nearly as strong as we would like. Certainly, relatively few costs are entailed in it. Any firm that cannot absorb those costs is not worth its salt.
One of the big problems with British industry, which has not been mentioned today, is the quality of management. The quality of far too much management is extremely poor and something must be done about it. Management courses are often almost like a catapult: they are not properly thought out. For real training in management, people must go to the continent or the United States. Nothing will be done about quality of management as long as managers are allowed to get away with their lackadaisical way of treating workers.
The Prime Minister talked about labour costs. That showed his attitude. Apparently, it is not human beings, men and women, who are trying to provide decently for their family: it is labour costs. He says that labour costs must be kept down, which is precisely the same as saying that we must keep the workers down. That simply will not do.
We undoubtedly need a minimum wage, and I have no qualms in talking about it. I talked about it in the last election. I well remember the manager of a factory who said, "You bring in a minimum wage when you get in in 10 days and I will have to close down." Only three months after the Government were returned, that factory closed down because it went bankrupt under the financial policies that were being followed.

Mrs. Currie: rose—

Mr. Enright: I do not have time to give way; the hon. Lady will be allowed to speak later.
If we do not have the minimum wage because it is unaffordable, what do we have? It has been announced today that chairmen and directors of water boards are allowed to take a huge number of £1 shares and then sell them tomorrow for £3. That is £2 for no productivity whatever, which is a scandal. We are informed that that means that almost £2 million, which is totally unaccounted for, will go into the pockets of directors of water boards without any work being done for it, yet we cannot afford the social chapter. Is not that the veriest nonsense?
What are the freedoms for which the Government are fighting? What are those firms being allowed to do? They will be allowed to sack pregnant women. The minute a woman becomes pregnant, a firm will be able to sack her. Without the social chapter we will not be able to do anything to stop such behaviour. We know that it goes on and that it is widespread. Families will he paid starvation wages. Kiddies will be allowed to grow up in poverty and therefore in crime.
Those are the freedoms for which the Government are fighting. Their most famous victory was in securing the no-holidays provision. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that people had to start working seven days a week. When all car dealers start to

work seven days a week, that will indeed be the day. An agreed maximum week of 48 hours is not too much to ask for.
I well recall a strike against compulsory overtime in a liquorice allsorts factory in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my mother led it. She worked there to ensure that we had an education, because, as a railwayman, my father was not paid enough. She refused to work compulsory overtime and leave families outside —the majority of workers there were women. We are debating such social conditions. Unless we have the social dimension to Europe, Europe itself will perish.
We have talked a lot about the democratic deficit, but we are concentrating on the social deficit, and it is entirely correct that we do so. There is a social deficit in Europe which we must plug. We must not plug it only by this safety net. That is all it is, a sort of safety net, which is happily accepted by those who agree with the social market. Frankly, it is happily accepted by a large number of Conservative Members who want a free vote and would vote for the social chapter. There are no two ways about it, because one can hear the European Movement happily expressing it.
There is a social deficit in Europe, but above all there is one in this country. Of course there has been internal investment and investment has come into the country, but hon. Members fail to mention that three times as much investment has gone to the continent instead of coming here, and that is a serious problem which should be properly analysed.
Twenty per cent. of those who are classified as poor in the Community live in this country. That is not a cause for complacency or contentment while the Government are talking about deregulation, and getting rid of regulations here, there and everywhere—if they were only red tape I would be entirely in favour. The Government are pushing the poor further down. They are deregulating the entire catering industry so that they can burn and poison people and get away with it. That is a disgrace.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I respect the views of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on Britain's place in Europe, and largely share them. I was especially dismayed, therefore, by his backward-looking speech. It reflected that of the Leader of the Opposition, who took us back to 1909, whereas the hon. Gentleman took us back to 1891. I did not recognise the Dickensian portrayal of the so-called social deficit that he alleged exists between this country and the rest of the continent of Europe. As he well knows, that is completely misleading.
The House and the other place have debated in great detail the Maastricht treaty as negotiated, successfully and skilfully, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and time and again they have approved those provisions. No Chamber in the European Community has given the treaty anything like the detailed examination to which it has been subjected here. It is right, therefore, that we should have proceeded to approve the treaty, and I welcome the fact that it has now been given the Royal Assent. It is right that the motion as laid down in the treaty and passed by the House, and the motion standing in the name of the Government, should be approved.
It would, however, he wrong for the House to accept the amendment tabled in the name of the Labour party.


That would first require a complete revision of the treaty, because it would be materially changed. Much more important than that procedural fact is the fact that it would seriously damage the interests of United Kingdom workers. Most of those who advocate adherence to the social chapter have recourse to the sort of Dickensian rhetoric that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hemsworth. We have heard the usual cliché, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the leader of the Labour party, descended—talk of Britain becoming the sweatshop of Europe. Everyone knows, in the Chamber and outside, that there is no question of Britain being the sweat shop of Europe. On the contrary, to put it as kindly as possible, anyone who suggests that is being disingenuous.
We must ensure that the workers are protected from losing their jobs and from the damaging implications of the introduction of the social chapter, which have been pointed out by every employers' organisation in the country. They are the people who know. The fascinating exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment demonstrated that European employers share the same view. That was game, set and match to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mrs. Currie: rose—

Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend knows that I have only the time limit allowed to me. I hope that she will forgive me for not giving way.
My hon. Friends who have shown some inclination to vote for Labour's amendment, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is not in his place at the moment, recognise—possibly even more than some of the rest of us do—the enormous damage that the social chapter would do to jobs and employees in this country, but seem determined to follow that unwise course because of their deep dislike of the Maastricht treaty.
I can only believe that that dislike is based, contrary to what they insist, on a fundamental misunderstanding of what was achieved in the negotiation of that treaty and what has developed and been worked into the system since it was negotiated in Maastricht. Virtually all the developments since then have been in the direction of the sort of Europe that the vast majority of us on both sides of the House wish to achieve: a Europe where national identities are respected, a Europe of allies where the national interests of national states can be protected but the benefits of union developed. That is the treaty that they resolutely refused to recognise.
For six weary months, as we all painfully know, those hon. Members allowed their anxieties to be displayed in Committee in the Chamber. It is worth remarking, that there were about 240 words in the European Communities (Amendment) Bill as first drafted, but it spent six months in Committee—one month per 40 words. However important those words are—I yield to no one in accepting their great importance—it does not take six months to negotiate a Bill of 240 words. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends felt so strongly about particular amendments that it took them two or even three hours to explain their objections to or support for them.
The normal reaction to a performance of that nature would be dismay at the lack of clarity and powers of expression of the hon. Member who was speaking. Sadly,

it has led to loss of the Chamber's prestige, and everyone outside the House now has a poor view of its capacity to deal with important issues. The irony is that the very hon. Members who profess to be deeply concerned about the dignity and power of the Chamber have contributed to that loss of status, and it is a loss to us all.
It is especially ironic that hon. Members who have used the parliamentary procedures that we are all privileged to enjoy have been at the forefront of that charge. In the past day or two they have been helped in seeking further delay by the person whom I might call the "Lord of lost causes", the noble Lord Rees-Mogg, who has so long been a prophet of doom. He is an espouser of hopeless quests and the gentleman who, in a notable article in The Times in May, suggested that he knew what happened on doorsteps, which those of us who know him had some difficulty in accepting.
That noble Lord and his offshore billionaire supporters seem determined to exercise their influence on the United Kingdom's right to develop an important relationship with the European Community, and are trying to get the courts to frustrate the strongly expressed will of Parliament. Were the issue not so vital, it would be hilarious for a former editor of The Times to have made himself a suitable subject for the fourth leader of that newspaper, rather than performing the distinguished role that he ought to be playing.
A fog was created around the Maastricht treaty, but that fog has now cleared and the issues are clear. The first of those issues is that the Maastricht treaty, as negotiated by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, is good for Britain. The second is that the social chapter, as now on offer, is potentially bad for Britain and British workers. Therefore, it is clear that all hon. Members should support the Government motion and resist the Labour party's amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has failed to explain the central problem that confronts the Government he supports: how can the Government, who claim to be at the heart of Europe, exercise influence by opting out of basic and fundamental policies? Conservative Members have consistently claimed that the social chapter opt-out was a negotiating triumph for the Prime Minister at Maastricht. They also say that it is not only in Britain's interests, but those of the whole Community, to resist the social chapter.
The Conservatives claim that the opt-out protects Britain from the alleged costs of the social chapter, but no proper statistical evidence of those costs has ever been presented. We have had some back-of-the-cigar-packet figures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, there has been no evidence to explain why, when at Maastricht the Prime Minister refused to agree to the social protocol, the other 11 countries went to extraordinary legal lengths to ensure that they could pass European legislation to give effect to the provisions of the social chapter.
At previous intergovernmental conferences, negotiations have generally continued until agreement is reached, with countries recognising that the resulting compromise contains elements with which they are happy and items that they oppose. They were content with compromise, viewing it as the only means of making progress. The social


policy opt-out was a significant departure from that process. Unlike a parallel agreement allowing the British Government to opt out of economic and monetary union, the social policy opt-out emerged only during the negotiations at Maastricht. That opt-out appears to have been no more than a convenient political fix—a political solution without regard to the complex constitutional questions that it created.
The immediate consequence of the opt-out was an agreement by the other 11 member states on the social protocol. That addition to the treaty was necessary to allow the remainder of the 11 member states to have the opportunity of passing European legislation to give full effect to the social chapter. The fact that the other 11 countries were prepared to go to such lengths to achieve their objective demonstrates their determination to implement the social chapter and nails the lie that Britain is leading the way in Europe.
Britain's refusal to accept the social chapter gave any other country in the Community that had doubts about the social chapter a perfect opportunity to opt out as well. I recognise that such action would have killed the idea of protecting social rights in the Community. The opportunity was available to them, but what happened? Governments of the left and of the right and coalition Governments of the centre rejected that opportunity unanimously. Every one of the other 11 countries was determined that killing the idea of protecting social rights should not happen—they preferred to agree the social protocol among themselves rather than allow the British Government's intransigence to frustrate their social policy plans.
The first constitutional consequence of the social chapter opt-out means that Britain's people will be less well protected in the Community and under European law than are their continental and Irish counterparts. It follows that there will be a development of a separate legal system in the community. That system will apply to the 11 member states that have adopted the social protocol and have agreed laws under its provisions, while Britain will once again be on the outside, looking in. That will inevitably cause confusion in the legal system of the Community. It will mean that, instead of having a single system of European law, with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg applying it, the Court will be forced to interpret directives made under the social protocol in a different way from those made with the unanimous approval of all 12 member states.
What will be the effect of the decisions? Will they apply to all 12 countries, to the British Government who have opted out of the social protocol or simply to the 11 countries that have agreed to the protocol? There will be an absurd state of affairs brought about by the deliberate policy of the British Government. How could they claim to be at the heart of Europe and the European Community when their decisions had destroyed a basic legal and constitutional principle of the European Community—that a single system of law should apply equally to all is citizens?
It appears inevitable that, at some stage, the opt-out will be challenged by the European Court of Justice. It follows from that—perhaps in the light of the Court's decision on the proposals for a European economic area

—that the European Court of Justice will state that the opt-out cannot stand constitutionally. Therefore, either directly or indirectly, the United Kingdom will be forced to accept the social protocol and the social chapter. The social policy opt-out will then be revealed as no more than the cheap political fix that I described and not a negotiated triumph.
If the legal and constitutional arguments at the European level appear remote, similar issues undoubtedly apply in the context of our constitution. British citizens who work for Ford or ICI in this country will enjoy different standards of social policy protection from their continental counterparts who work for the same organisations elsewhere. Should a continental country fall short of the standards set out in a directive which passed under the social protocol, continental and Irish citizens will be able to appeal to their own courts and, ultimately, to the European Court of Justice. The same process will not be available to British citizens, who will be denied rights before the British courts and, ultimately, in European law, before the European Court of Justice. They will be denied basic rights available to every other citizen in the European Community.
That is why it is crucial for the House of Commons to signal clearly its determination to carry the Labour amendment. It requires the British Government to show their willingness to adopt the social protocol. Such a clear statement by the House of Commons appears, sadly, to have caused further constitutional difficulties for the Government. In the past few weeks we have seen a series of briefings and statements attributed to the usual anonymous Government sources suggesting that, even if the House of Commons recommends the adoption of the social protocol before ratification, the Government will ignore that recommendation.
In so doing, the Government would strike at the very heart of our unwritten constitution; they would strike at the basic principle set out by the leading constitutional authority, Professor Dicey. He said:
The one essential principle of the constitution is obedience by all persons to the deliberately expressed will of the House of Commons in the first instance, and ultimately to the will of the nation as expressed through Parliament.
That applies to the Government, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and everyone else in this country who supports our constitution.
But the Government lawyers have apparently advised the Prime Minister that he can proceed to ratification whatever the view or opinion of the House of Commons. Not for the first time, the Government appear to be relying on conveniently timed legal advice to get them off the painful Maastricht hook. Such advice in only a partial account of a complicated legal picture.
It is clear that treaty-making in this country is subject to what is known as the Ponsonby rule—a practice introduced by a Labour Government in April 1924 to require the Government to lay treaties before Parliament for 21 days before they could be ratified. The primary purpose of that rule was to ensure publicity and to end any risk of a Government using the royal prerogative to conclude secret treaties. It may appear ironic that such a rule should apply to the Maastricht treaty, which has perhaps received more publicity than any other treaty in our history.
The Ponsonby rule is relevant because it has always been assumed that, during the 21 days, it would be open to


the House of Commons to object to a treaty, even though it had been made under the prerogative. That is the closest that the British constitution comes to the constitutional arrangements available in most other countries. Elsewhere, treaties can be ratified only after a parliamentary process which allows for a democratic vote either to approve or reject the treaties. In the past, Parliament has specifically been invited to approve important treaties such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 1949 and the 1954 agreement, which brought Germany into NATO and the Western European Union.
It is inconceivable that the Government could have gone ahead without parliamentary support on those occasions. That reinforces the view that the ultimate purpose of the approach is to obtain the approval of Parliament for a treaty and that, without such specific approval, the Government of the day should not proceed to ratification.
The relevance of the Ponsonby rule to the Maastricht social chapter is clear. If Parliament has the power to approve or disapprove ratification of a treaty, it must have the power to approve ratification subject to a condition —in this case, the acceptance of the social chapter. That issue goes to the heart of our constitution. We have no written constitution against which the actions of our Government can be measured and, where appropriate, tested before the courts. In those circumstances, it has always been left to the good sense of Ministers to behave within the basic principles of our constitution—above all else, giving effect to the wishes of Parliament and the House of Commons. If our Government fail to follow that principle, our parliamentary democracy will be put at risk.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yesterday Madam Speaker gave us a ruling. As an Ulsterman, I am glad that tonight I am speaking under the freedom of the Williamite revolution settlement. Some people in Northern Ireland will smile when they think of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) enjoying that liberty, too, under the Williamite revolution settlement. It puts this debate into a European context.
Those who oppose the Maastricht treaty cannot be blamed for the fact that this debate is taking place. A lot of blame has been spoken of, as though those who oppose the treaty are responsible for it. That is completely untrue and must be nailed immediately as a falsehood.
The Prime Minister is responsible for our being here tonight. When he could not manipulate a majority for the Bill when it was before the House, the Whips had the clever idea that a special provision should be included in the Bill: that the Act should come into force only when each House of Parliament had come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown concerning the adoption of the protocol on social policy.
We found next that the Government questioned the morality of those who voted against them. The Prime Minister and his Whips examined the souls of each Member going into the Lobby and said, "But he is going into the Lobby because he is against the treaty, not because he is against the social chapter, so he should not be included. That is not really a majority against us."
I have sat in this House for many years and have vigorously disagreed with various people. They, even more

vigorously, disagreed with me, but we went into the same Lobby because of particular issues. No man has the right to say to a Member of this House, "You have no right to vote the way you intend to vote tonight because of certain things you dislike in an amendment." Those of us who are against the treaty have the right to say that the Act cannot come into force because each House has to come to a resolution. Do the Government think that those who oppose the treaty can be forced into the Lobby? Therefore, my colleague and I will vote against the treaty being implemented. That is why we are here.
Much has been said about the social chapter. It is a pity that more hon. Members were not in the Chamber to listen to the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Not one of the points that he made has been challenged. He explained just what the social chapter really means and what its limitations are. Many hon. Members would be far happier if there were many more safeguards for employees than those that are to be found in the social chapter, but that is not the issue that those who oppose the treaty are here for tonight.
People may say to us, "Why do you oppose the treaty?" We believe that it strikes at the very heart of our democracy. I am here tonight because the people of the south of Ireland said, in a referendum, "You must have the treaty." If they had said no, the treaty would have been killed. I am here tonight because the people of France voted in a referendum. The result was poor, but there was a majority for the treaty. They did not examine the morality of their souls. Their souls were all right, so long as they voted the right way. Denmark had a referendum. The people of Denmark voted against the treaty, so they had to have another chew at the cherry. They were given certain concessions.
That is why we are here tonight. Those who have taken part in the debates are entitled to take as long as they want to discuss this issue.
I do not agree that our House has been debased. I am a Member of the European Parliament. My European colleagues say, "That's a great Parliament you have over there. You really go into matters. In our local parliaments we would never be given the opportunity to examine Bills in the way that you examine them." So I think that this Parliament has enhanced itself. People realised that we were taking this issue seriously.
Under the Act that we were told by Madam Speaker is the foundation of Parliament's authority, the freedom of speech and debates and of proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. However, the long hand of the European Court comes into this nation. The long hand of the European Court says, "We don't like what you did at Westminster. We do not approve of what you are doing and we have the power not only to question but to overrule what you are doing." That is at the very heart of the argument.
If the people of the Republic of Ireland, France and Denmark had the right to say yea or nay to the treaty, the people of the United Kingdom should be given the same privilege and the same opportunity to say whether they want it or not.
I am afraid that fear of the people hangs over the Government. That is why they are not prepared to go to the people. I do not believe that they would get a majority. Therefore, they are using every means to oppose a


referendum. I, as a Member of this House, resent the fact that the Government have not told us what, if they do not get approval for their motion, they intend to do. They should be duty bound to say, "We cannot ratify." They should obey their own Act. If the Government are hoist by their own petard, there they will have to hang.
The Government have tried in many ways to flout the wishes of the House of Commons. It is all very well to talk about majorities at other stages of the Bill. I was here for the Second Reading of the original common market Bill. I know what happened. There was a tremendous fight in the House. I saw the then leader of the Liberal party beaten over the head by a Labour Member until he was nearly flattened into his seat. I was approached and offered all things by the Government, if I would change the way I voted. I was threatened that if I did not change the way I voted, the Government might resign and we might have a Labour Government. No Government could be more terrible for Northern Ireland than the Tory Government who brought in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Even the Labour party could do no worse than that.
The Government have not approached me. I have no links with them. My party has a policy on this issue and we shall stand by it. I hope that tonight the Maastricht treaty will sink, not swim.

Mr. John Hutton: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was right to say that we are having this debate because the Government themselves accepted the need for it. If the Government had felt that there was no need for it, they should have opposed the amendments at the time that they were proposed in Committee. It is utterly disingenuous, therefore, although typically in character, for the Government to claim that the debate is a red herring and that it is inappropriate for the House to discuss issues concerning the protocol on social policy.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not take that view. It is entirely appropriate that Members of the House should have the opportunity to express their collective view and opinion about the merits, or otherwise, of the social protocol. It is one of the issues that we must discuss during this debate. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have concentrated to a large extent on that issue, to which I shall return later.
The debate also raises other important issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) said, one of those issues is the right and power of the House to assert its authority over the Executive. It is very important, especially after 14 years of one-party rule, that Members of Parliament assert their sovereignty and their right to tell the Executive that we have a collective opinion and that it is our opinion that counts. I am therefore astonished that the Prime Minister has felt unable to say that to the House and that he will not necessarily accept the view of the House of Commons. It raises profound constitutional issues relating to the sovereignty of Parliament and the rights of hon. Members.
Hon. Members are elected to speak on behalf of our constituents and, on occasions, to use our collective power

to express our opinion to the Government of the day. We have a right to expect the Government of the day to honour a majority decision in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield also drew the House's attention to Professor Dicey's seminal work on constitutional law. It is a sign of the times that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to Professor Dicey earlier in the week, Conservative Members laughed. Clearly, they no longer read books. If they had read Professor Dicey's work, they would have understood exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend was saying. It is not appropriate for the Government of the day to refuse to accept the collective will and wisdom of the House of Commons.
There cannot be any doubt, in terms of the constitutional legality, that we have the right to direct the Government as to how they exercise the royal prerogative. It has been resolved in constitutional law and is not an issue. If, as I hope, the House expresses the wish that it wants the social protocol to form part of the Maastricht treaty, and for it then to be implemented in United Kingdom law, the Government are duty bound to accept it. In that sense, the will and authority of the House to exert its power over the Executive should perhaps be the issue that is uppermost on hon. Members' minds and the focus of our debate. I hope that we make that judgment later, not only for the substantive issues raised by the social protocol but for the status of the House.
The debate has rightly and perhaps inevitably focused on the merits or otherwise of the social protocol. I have listened to most of the contributions to the debate and have been dismayed by the lack of honesty revealed by Conservative Members. It is wholly bogus, and rather silly and sad, for Conservative Members to claim that the social protocol will somehow price British workers out of work. It is pathetic and absurd to hear them say that it is the Government's duty to protect British workers from the benefits of improved social and employment protection. There is no doubt that British workers need and deserve improved social and working conditions. The benefits of the social protocol are widely accepted around Europe by Governments of all political persuasions—Christian Democrat, Conservative, Liberal and Socialist; only this reactionary and rather bigoted Government have refused to accept the primary need for the protocol.
The case for the social protocol is simple. We all know that Europe is undergoing fundamental and profound changes. European business under the single European market and the convulsions that are taking place during the reorganisation of Europe's industrial base make the case strongly for a social dimension to accompany any changes. It is inappropriate for hon. Members to concentrate exclusively on the notion that Europe is all about markets. It is not only about markets; it is a community of people and the common interests of those people in making valuable and sustainable social progress. That is the case for the social protocol. It is regrettable that the case against it has been so flagrantly exaggerated and over-egged by Conservative Members.
The terms of the social protocol are elementary and straightforward. They offer basic employment protection measures which will improve the working environment of and the terms on which people are employed and will advance equality between the men and women who are in employment. It is distasteful that, in the last few years of the 20th century, the House still seems locked in the


Dickensian attitude that it is inappropriate for us to extend any measure that will improve the social and employment conditions of British workers. It is contemptible and those outside who are listening to our debate will also find it so.
We can conclude only that the social protocol has become a totem pole around which the Government are making their case in favour of the Maastricht treaty. The Government are telling the right wing of their party that they are standing firm against the European bureaucratic bandwagon whereas, in reality, they have already conceded huge chunks of sovereignty, jurisdiction and competence to the European Commission, rightly so in my opinion.
However, they are arguing simultaneously, that by accepting the Maastricht treaty, subject to the removal of the social protocol, they are remaining at the heart of Europe. That is not and cannot be true. We cannot be at the heart of Europe and go in the direction that the Community is taking when we have deliberately absented ourselves from matters relating to social policy, one of the key aspects of the Community's development in the 21st century.
It is naive for Conservative Members to pretend that the social protocol is out of date and represents yesterday's thinking. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) tried to create that impression, but, in fact, the social protocol is tomorrow's thinking. It is ridiculous for Conservative Members to continue to believe that social issues related to the construction of a new Europe are going to go away and that it is inappropriate for Members of the European Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the domestic Parliaments of member states to have a say in how social progress can be maintained and developed. The issue will not go away. If we are truly to play a full and integral role in the development of the Community in the coming years, we need to wake up to the reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield raised interesting questions about the legality of Britain staying out of the social protocol. Such questions undermine the Government's case. There will be substantive legal difficulties ahead if the Government refuse to adopt and embrace the social protocol. I name only two.
First, will our continued opt-out be unconstitutional under the treaty of Rome because it offends the principle of non-discrimination against European Community workers? It will be a running battle that the Government will fight and lose, as they have always lost such battles. Secondly, there is a case for saying that the opt-out will infringe the treaty's provisions relating to competition policy. Again, it is naive of the Government to think that they can escape the looming legal battles. There will be arguments and I hope that, if we cannot persuade Conservative Members of the strength and logic of our case, they will at least be forced kicking and screaming, as they often are, into the right way of thinking by other member states.
There is something absurd about the notion that the Government are playing a full integral role in developing the shape of the Community. They are not. How can they argue that when, every time the social protocol surfaces in the Council of Ministers., Ministers representing the United Kingdom have to absent themselves from the proceedings? It is absurd.
The logic and strength of the case in favour of the social protocol is overwhelming and self-evident. It is only

because of an outdated and clapped-out faith in their own argument that the Government manage to believe that they have won. In fact, they have lost the argument about the need for the social protocol. We have won it and I hope that, having won it, we shall go on to win the vote this evening.

Mr. John Butcher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to explain my reasons for voting Aye in the first vote and for voting against the motion as amended in the second vote. I owe this explanation to my hon. Friends and, in particular, to my right hon. and true Friend the Prime Minister.
I make it clear that I have always believed that it is possible to be against the Maastricht treaty but in favour of a different and better Europe. I shared the dream that everyone had in the 1970s. I was assured that there would be no loss of sovereignty as we opted for a free trade area. I also shared the dreams of our fathers who said that they did not want their children to fight in another European war.
I assert those things tonight, too, but retrospection is a great harbinger of wisdom. I think that if we examine Europe's economic record we shall in time come to the view that the salad days of Europe, the days of great concepts and economic initiatives, were already coming to an end by about 1980. As our continent's competitiveness has fallen, our share of world exports has declined by one fifth since 1980. Worse, there is a widening deficit in high-technology goods—in semiconductors, for example, which are the building blocks of virtually every industrial and commercial process in the western world today. Between 1982 and 1990 high-tech exports from Europe went up by the tiny margin of 2 per cent., yet imports increased by 7·7 per cent. per year.
The worst factor of all, and that which we in the House dread most—the reason why, in terms of social policy, we are here—is the rate of employment in our country and in our continent. In western Europe, unemployment is now 10 per cent., in the United States it is 7 per cent. and in Japan 2·3 per cent.
I fear that, if the methodology and the psychology in the treaty are perpetuated, there will be an inexorable drift towards protectionism, probably with France in the vanguard, with allies in Spain and, if Germany's difficulties continue, perhaps with allies even there, too, in the medium term.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Butcher: I shall not give way if there is still a 10-minute time limit on speeches. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the rule is still in force.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The 10-minute rule no longer applies.

Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend feel that in supporting the social contract he is doing anything for the people of Coventry and the rest of the west midlands, part of which I represent? By voting as he says he intends to vote, will he be doing anything for the industrialists who want to produce our goods in the most competitive way?

Mr. Butcher: The short answer to my hon. Friend's second question is yes. I grew up in the high-tech industries and I am proud of my continuing connections with them. If the 48-hour rule were brought in, it would not damage the so-called sweatshop industries as much as the high-tech industries. My hon. Friend would find that systems analysts, programmers, installation engineers and the people who commission huge electronic systems in our companies, who have to work all day and all night to tight deadlines, would be the class of people whose efficiency would be impaired.
I must also tell my hon. Friend that my vote tonight will not be in favour of the social chapter. My second vote will be against the social chapter; that is what the motions say, if we read them properly. I believe that in recording a vote against the social chapter I may do a little bit to delay the implementation of the treaty. If we do not want the social chapter, let us wipe the protocol out by wiping out the treaty. That protocol would advise the European Court of Justice on the ways in which it could bring in the social chapter by the back door to our industries and our companies, especially our high-tech manufacturing sector.
I have thought deeply both about the social chapter and about the future of the treaty itself. I am bound to say that there is a hint of arrogance in this Parliament. There is one French philosopher with whom I agree—a chap called Rousseau—who once said:
the first prerequisite for learning is humility".
We must learn from our recent history. We must not assume that we in the House and in Europe are the sole controllers of events. Others have powerful views that contradict ours. If we do not mind their views and do not try to assess the future for Europe in the light of the consensus that will emerge there, we shall have failed ourselves, failed the House and perhaps failed the people of this country.
I believe that I have visited the heart of Europe. If we plot the geo-economic centre of Europe we find a little town that I know well, called Pirmasens. It is, literally, a small town in Germany. The people there do not hate the British, nor do they necessarily love us. I suppose that they get on with their own lives, and take notice of us only if we start to compete and to damage the competitiveness of their local companies. Their view of us can be summed up thus: "Where are your products?" That is their view of the British and that is the question that they ask.
I do not believe that the Maastricht treaty will deliver the level playing field that our successful industries require. I shall sit down later tonight having demonstrated that I am an optimist about our economic and industrial prospects. It is because I am an optimist that I do not want to see Europe dissolve into some dirigiste row, with the jockeying for position and the horse trading that takes place in a market that is no longer free.
The Germans have a concept that they give a typically German name—"das gesamtkonzept". Typically, they have a system and a methodology that they apply. Their political classes, using the gesamtkonzept, which is in contradiction to our own, say that there will be a federal Europe with strong systems. It will be interventionist and free trade will more or less govern its external relationships. The Gesamtkonzept holds stronger sway at the moment than does our concept of freely trading nations behind a common tariff barrier.
In France, too, there is a view described as "la préférence européene". That is an elegant phrase, but what

it really means is protectionism and protectionism not only for France but for the continent as a whole, if it finds the competitive climate too difficult for it and can find no other means of protecting the well-being of the people of France. I fear that if Germany's economic and political difficulties continue, it may move from a camp more or less allied to ours over to the French position of la préférence européene.
In Spain, too, there is a concept called "la cohesion" —cohesion. The Spaniards speak for the poorer nations of southern Europe and they wish to see central funds directed towards those countries to make up for their inability to compete in truly open free trade. La cohesion means grants and handouts for the poorer countries. That is another concept against which our Prime Minister will have to struggle. But although those concepts are embraced by the political classes of Europe, they are not necessarily shared by the peoples of Europe. A recent huge Europewide Euro-barometer poll found that only two in five Europeans were positively in favour of Maastricht.
If we are to amend the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—I am in favour of doing so—this is not the way to do it. Some of my hon. Friends who may not count themselves as cynics or sceptics may prefer the term Euro-realists. I ask them to examine the treaty, because large chunks of it could have been incorporated into the Labour party manifesto at the general election and we would have fought it tooth and nail. We live in strange times.
Tonight there will be many ghosts in the Division Lobby, some friendly but some, shall we say, atavistic in their attitude to life. I believe that if events in Germany and Britain unhinge the Maastricht treaty there will be a rethink about how to amend those two earlier treaties. There will be, dare I say, a fresh start.
We should not be so unambitious as to believe that, if we voted against the treaty, we should somehow be sidelined. We will provoke a rethink. The terms under which all nations agreed to ratify the treaty were that, if one country, perhaps Germany—and, of course, no longer Denmark or Britain—were to go against the general trend, they would have to go back to the drawing board. That would be no bad thing given the figures that I outlined earlier.
However, I return to the ghosts and to my difficulty in saying to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I remain his hon. Friend in every sense of the word. I ask him and the House to consider who will be in the Division Lobby with us tonight. The ghosts of past Europeans will be there.
My Conservative Friends will be sharing the No Lobby with the ghost of Colbert, the man who invented the methodology of the Maastricht treaty all those centuries ago. They will be sharing that Lobby with the rather clammy ghost of Richelieu, the man who thought that he could be the great arbiter of things European. but who ultimately failed. Perhaps we see his reincarnation in today's French President. They will also be sharing that Lobby with the ghost of Bismarck. As I am an admirer of A. J. P. Taylor's history, I ask all my hon. Friends to reread their dusty university books which were written by A. J. P. Taylor.
Bismarck knew that, when he created the Zollverein, that was the beginning of a political union. However, he did that for his country and his countrymen to unite the various German peoples. We want a Zollverein in Europe,


but we do not want a Europe united in the way that Bismark envisaged. In due course, nor will the German people.
As I share the Lobby with the live bodies of many Labour Members, I will comfort myself with the thought that there will be two ghosts with me. One will be the greatest Scotsman who ever lived. He was a man who won all the arguments and wrote in elegant prose. Although he is accepted throughout the world, he is still a prophet who has not been accepted in his own country. I am referring of course, to Adam Smith, who wrote "The Wealth of Nations". The title referred to the plural—to "nations", not to a single "nation". I hope that he will pat me on the back as I walk through to record my vote tonight.
I pay tribute to another ghost who will be with me tonight—an Anglo-Irishman called Edmund Burke. As I put my head on my pillow tonight, I will say to him, "I did my little bit when they tried to put the lights out," and I shall sleep well.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: I do not share the judgment of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) about the Maastricht treaty, nor do I share in his eulogy to Adam Smith. However, we can all agree that the hon. Gentleman spoke with great sincerity and honesty as he expressed his views tonight. I pay him that tribute.
However, the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West marked him out from the contributions made by many of his hon. Friends. In particular, his speech marked him out in respect of that made by the Prime Minister, who showed himself utterly contemptuous of public opinion.
It is worth remembering that public opinion, by any measure of that opinion, is overwhelmingly in favour of the social protection, measures and benefits set in the social chapter. The Prime Minister showed himself to be almost as contemptuous of public opinion as he seems to be in danger of being in respect of parliamentary sovereignty and of our will tonight. That remains to be seen.
The Prime Minister's speech also revealed his abject lack of vision about Europe's future development. His speech was more barren and shallow than the kind of vision that we used to hear from Mrs. Thatcher. At least she had an idea of what she wanted to do in Europe. She at least had an idea about her destination, even though I and many of my hon. Friends profoundly disagreed with it. On the basis of his speech this afternoon, the same cannot be said of the present Prime Minister.
Probably the most important point to be revealed in the speeches made so far by Conservative Members relates to their views on the long-term future of the British economy and how we are to succeed in building real economic strength. Conservative Members are profoundly out of touch with reality, so much so that it is hard to believe that many of them speak to people who work in business or industry. It is hard to imagine that they even bother to read the many reports produced by Government Departments.
Did not the Department of Trade and Industry's competitiveness unit reveal only last week that our competitive position is so weak that Britain is now 18th of 24 countries in terms of national income per head? We are behind Finland, Iceland and Italy. We are falling to the

levels of Spain and Portugal in many of the ways, and for many of the reasons, described by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West. We are so unproductive that, according to a survey carried out by the London Business School and IBM, only 2 per cent. of United Kingdom companies achieve world-class standards of performance.
Yet the Prime Minister's argument against the social chapter today was that we are doing so well that we must not spoil our success by implementing the social chapter. He said that the social chapter would somehow ruin all the Government's good work in sorting out the problems of British manufacturing.
Given the relative industrial performance of Britain in relation to other EC member states, does not the Prime Minister think that there is a lesson that we can learn from the fact that the more successful countries have embraced the social chapter and have been practising its ideas arid methods of social support and protection for many years? In contrast, over the bulk of the past decade, we in this country have been experiencing a laboratory-controlled experiment of a labour market operating without rules. If the Government's case was right and lack of employment rights and standards produced greater or equal success, we should be economically booming by now. Manifestly, we are not.
Whatever incipient recovery may be beginning now, during the years of Britain's deregulated labour market, we have had the highest rising unemployment, the lowest levels of investment and the lowest growth anywhere in Europe. That is the testimony to the Government's failed policies for industry, in relation to employment and at the workplace. That is why the Government's approach to the social chapter and all its provisions is so wrong.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman's points are very interesting. Very close to my constituency, a port is rapidly growing which will be the second largest container port in Britain. That port will compete with Rotterdam. That investment was impossible to make while the dock labour scheme existed. Much of that kind of investment was chocked off by socialist proposals which it took a long time to get rid of under this Government.

Mr. Mandelson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the success of his constituents in attracting that investment. However, I hope that he is not suggesting that the national dock labour scheme is among the horrors, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, which are threatening to return to this country as a result of the social chapter. That is not the case, like so much else that Conservative Members claim.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: In a moment.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has come in right on cue, because it suits the Government's case to exaggerate widly and to falsify the consequences of adopting the social chapter. At one time, Ministers said time and again that the social chapter would wipe out 750,000—they then changed it to 500,000—jobs at a stroke. They even claimed that 300,000 boys and girls would no longer be able to deliver newspapers as a result of the introduction of the social chapter in this country.
Their arguments became so ridiculous that at times our very future as a trading nation, not to mention the future


of western civilisation as we knew it, seemed to be at stake. How expedient and convenient it has been throughout all the hyperbole that has beens—

Mr. Marlow: Is not the real answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that if we are concerned about the social chapter—the point was made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats —if we are there, we can prevent what we might think are dreadful things from happening, but if we are not there they will happen, because they will be decided by the other 11 and be forced on us by other parts of the treaty?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He will acknowledge that other treaty provisions are already in place which will enable those measures to be introduced via other routes.
It is very important to nail again many of the lies that have come—no doubt unwittingly—from Conservative Members tonight. An enormous amount of disinformation is purposely being pumped out by the Government —aided and abetted, I am sorry to say, by branches of the media, including the BBC in recent days.
The social chapter is a framework of ideas and goals. It is not a set of detailed obligatory rules. That is its advantage over the original social charter and the social action programme. The social chapter has had built into it the very flexibility and principles of subsidiarity which are apparently so favoured by the Government. The social chapter explicitly says that national laws and practices must be respected in applying the social chapter, particularly in respect of contractual relationships. It cannot be used in any way connected with laws relating to strikes and unions, despite what we have heard from many Conservative Members.
The fact that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and I have mentioned—I stress it again following my response to him—is that the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, regardless of the Maastricht treaty, have articles which present a series of open doors through which the social chapter's intentions can and will be implemented in this country. Whatever the outcome of our vote on the social chapter and the Maastricht treaty, the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, all the relevant articles are already in place, agreed by Ministers in the previous Government under Mrs. Thatcher and under the present Prime Minister.
The crucial difference, however, is that, without our signing up to the social chapter, Britain will not be able to influence the implementation of the social chapter in this country. We shall not be at the table to determine how, when and on what terms the social chapter will be implemented if we continue this futile and self-defeating opt-out. What on earth could possibly be the sense of that?
Of all the baseless arguments that I have heard, not only in this debate but throughout the Committee proceedings in which I was an active participant, probably the least defensible is the claim by some that, by adopting the social chapter, we shall harm inward investment. What frightens business people looking to locate in Britain is not that we might start to act and perform like the rest of Europe, but that we are so far on the fringe of Europe that Nye are becoming too little part of Europe. That is what frightens potential inward investors from Japan who want

to invest in Europe and in Britain. They want to invest in a Britain which is clearly part of the wider European Community.
What will put off potential inward investors is not that we observe elementary standards of social protection and benefits but that we fail abysmally to invest in the skills, talents and motivation of our work force. In the north-east, we have attracted Nissan and Fujitsu, and Stadium in my constituency, not because those companies are looking for a downtrodden, exploited, untrained, low-wage work force, but because they take seriously the need to put a lot into their work force if they are to get high motivation, high productivity and high skill back.
That is precisely the philosophy at the heart of the social chapter. The Government are grossly out of step and out of tune in rejecting it. They are out of step not least with business people in this country as well as potential inward investors.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why those wonderful Japanese companies came to Britain was because, if they did not come, the EC would deliberately make it more and more difficult for Japanese cars to come into this country? Although we welcome them, let us not forget that one reason why they came was that the EC is becoming more protectionist every day and it was keeping out Japanese cars and restricting the numbers more and more.

Mr. Mandelson: If that is true, it is precisely why we should continue to be a full and active participant in the European Community.
The industrial culture that I have described and the resulting enterprise that we need are absolutely vital if we are to succeed economically in Britain. That is how others have done it and are doing it in Europe and also in many emerging economies. People often describe the emerging economies of Asia, the Pacific rim and the far east as though they were mere sweatshop economies employing sweatshop labour. In fact, many of those countries are investing hugely in the education, training and development of their work forces.
That is what is so vital to success in the modern world, and that is what we must do if we are to get ahead and prosper again. That is why Labour's amendment should be strongly supported in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Michael Lord: Much has happened since the paving debate in the autumn that created such a close finish in the voting. Tonight I have heard many of the arguments that were deployed then. I particularly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). He spoke very well, and made some tremendous contributions to the debate. I shall not be with him in the Lobby tonight, but I think that he and I have thought very much along the same lines during most of these difficult months.
I have sat through almost all the debates in the House and in Committee, and I have made the odd contribution. No one is more opposed to the concept of the Maastricht treaty than I am, and no one is keener on the idea of a referendum. I believe that to impose this treaty on the people of this country without asking them first whether


they want this amount of power transferred from this House of Commons is something that we shall all live to regret.
In the referendum debate, I said that I believed that my vote that night would probably be the most important vote that I would ever cast as long as I was a Member of the House of Commons. I still believe that, no matter how important the vote tonight. I believe that my vote that night on a referendum to ask the British people about what we are doing was probably the most important vote that I would ever cast. So it is with enormous sadness that I am reluctantly forced to accept that the Bill for the Maastricht treaty has received Royal Assent and is now an Act. In fact, it has now received Royal Assent and is an Act.
I also believe very much that the social chapter issue is a separate matter altogether. I appreciate that, in terms of tonight's debate, it is linked to the Bill, but, if we are all honest with ourselves, there are two fundamentally separate issues before us. One is the Maastricht treaty and the other is the social chapter.
I simply cannot bring myself to vote for the social chapter, no matter how much of a purely political device it may be. Despite all that has been said tonight, I believe that it will damage British industry. It is clear from the debate that the social chapter, like so many of these things, can mean to any one of us what we want it to mean. Some people think that it is the end of the world; some people think that it is so trivial that they do not know why we are bothering with it. But I believe that it will have an influence on business life in this country.
This is one of the problems with the whole European idea. Some countries that have developed their industrial systems over centuries, whose industrial relations have been built up over a long time, all in individual and separate ways; and suddenly it is proposed that a uniform framework should be planted on all 12 nations. I cannot see how that can fail to bring in restrictions and create a great deal of harm. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the effect that it would have on companies such as ICI in my constituency. I really believe that it will be damaging if we vote for the social chapter.
Apart from that, we may think tonight that it is only a technicality, but we must remember the signals that that gives to people both in our own country and in the rest of Europe. There is no doubt at all that, when the dust settles, a vote for the social chapter here tonight will be seen as just that. We may try to explain that we hoped that something else would result, and that, as a result of that result, yet something else would happen. But it gets very convoluted and, if we are not careful, we will lose ourselves in the maze of technicalities.
I have thought very carefully about what this vote would mean, and I believe that it would be a vote for the social chapter. I believe that that is how my constituents, and indeed most of the country, would see it, and I am not prepared to go down that road.
I have sought to impede as much as possible the passage of the Maastricht treaty Bill through the House, but I honestly do not believe that voting for the social chapter will do any particular damage to the Maastricht treaty. I believe that, very sadly, as I have said, it will now be ratified. I believe that a vote for the social chapter tonight would do a great deal of damage both to our Prime Minister and to our Government. I really believe that, and it is time that the House acknowledged it.
I will not urge colleagues to follow my example in the Lobbies; there has been far too much urging of one kind or another over recent months. They obviously must, and will, decide for themselves what they will do. But I am quite sure that the European issue will not go away. There will be other battles to be fought, and I very much hope that on this side of the House we will fight them as a more united party.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West is right: many things are happening in Europe, and we will see great changes. He used the words "fresh start". I believe that a huge rethink is needed, and I hope that, as a country and as a party, we will take the lead in that fresh thinking.
One national newspaper started one of its articles today with the simple words:
It is time to start talking about things other than Maastricht.
I believe that to be true. Huge problems face both our country and the world at the moment. We must, as a Government, get on with them. To prolong this process further will not merely damage the Government more, but damage its ability to govern.
That is why I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight against the social chapter.

Mr. Frank Cook: I have sat throughout the debate and listened intently to all the contributions. I have scribbled a few notes, and I would like to give the House the benefit of them this evening.
I speak as one who campaigned to come out of the Common Market at the time of the national referendum, but also as someone who realised over the years that it was unrealistic to maintain that stance. We have been in too long, and we have become embedded too deeply, to change now.
I suppose, too, that I was attracted by the improved conditions common throughout Europe that appear to be beneficial to European citizens. I visited Holland and Germany, I appreciated the measurably higher standards of living in those two countries, which their citizens attributed to membership of the European Community, and I thought that perhaps we could get a piece of that improvement here.
When we talk about the Common Market, what does "common" mean? We, of all hon. Members, ought to appreciate that it means equal. We insist on equality, do we not? We refer to it, with regard to Europe, as a level playing field—level in terms of trade, commerce and marketing—but if a level playing field is desirable for the captains of industry, why do we reject it for the players on the field? Why do we penalise the people who invest their whole lives in the industry of this country and create the wealth of the nation?
The social chapter is not the penal imposition of on-costs that the Government imply. The majority of respected companies in the United Kingdom already provide standards of pay, conditions and protection that clearly exceed European requirements, so what threat is there to companies such as ICI in my constituency?
We have just heard the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) pleading the case for ICI and talking about the threat that the social protocol would pose to that corporation. I did not see the same hon. Member in the vanguard protecting ICI from the threats of a noble Lord


in the other place when he was trying to buy up shares in that corporation. Now, for some reason, he seems to think that the social protocol would be a great threat to it. I know ICI as well as anybody, and its standards already exceed any requirement that the social protocol would impose.
The Prime Minister went further. He quoted Sir Denys Henderson as saying that Her Majesty's Government should ratify the treaty. I can accept that, but he then went on to report that Sir Denys said:
Equally important, the Prime Minister should sustain the opt-out from the social chapter which he gained last year.
That, I am afraid, I cannot swallow. I cannot believe that Sir Denys could be so incredibly callow, and I will tell the House why.
ICI already operates throughout Europe in numerous countries. I cannot believe that Sir Denys would paint himself into a corner by seeking an environment in which he could deliver his British work force conditions substantially poorer than those that he was required to provide in other European states. It just does not make sense. I do not believe that Sir Denys would be so stupid as to provoke his British work force by making such a crass comment. But I shall find out, and I can promise the House that so will his work force, because I shall see that they do.
Since the Prime Minister is so keen to quote Sir Denys Henderson, he might like to note the same gentleman's assessment of the annual cost to his corporation of European transactions—not the amount of trade, not the value of sales, but the simple cost of changing money to make commercial transactions possible. Sir Denys estimated, 15 months ago, that the annual figure stood at £90 million: an annual added on cost of £90 million, without any kind of ensuing production promise. What price a single European currency under those conditions?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asserts that the added costs of the social protocol are minuscule. The Government disagree, and say that the added costs are prohibitive. If the Government are right, the European transnationals will have one level of on-costs in this country and another for operations elsewhere throughout Europe. That is not a saving; it is a recipe for industrial unrest for all European transnationals throughout the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister said that membership of the common agricultural policy would enable us to work for change from within, yet he rejects the same logic with regard to the social chapter. Does that mean that he will be content to stay outside discussions, or does he expect his European counterparts to allow him to contribute like some cuckoo in the nest? What price the Common Market then?
This week, two reports have highlighted the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the United Kingdom. The opt-out promotes a climate that will cause that gap to widen even further. The Government's unheeding, doctrinaire proposals have become a party fetish, a sightless totem clearly displaying their readiness—no, their eagerness—to put profit before people.
Their objective seems to be simply a penny-pinching, cost-cutting sweatshop economy. Their attitude is that British workers should be worked long and hard, sold

cheap, and employed in dangerous conditions. The people of this country will never forgive such disloyalty, nor should they ever forget it.

Sir Anthony Grant: Hon. Members have stated their positions, so I should say immediately that I am not a Euro-sceptic or a Euro-fanatic. However, I was perhaps one of the earliest Euro-sceptics—I hereby make my confession—because, as long ago as 1961, at the Conservative party conference, I made an important speech against our entry into the Common Market. I was pulled up short by a most powerful speech in favour of our entry from none other than my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He was so persuasive that I was largely converted by the speech. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest that my speech had the reverse effect on him.
At that time, I argued the old-fashioned case for the Commonwealth. That was before Mr. Enoch Powell described the Commonwealth as having
nothing in common and very little wealth".
I did not go as far as that, but I recognised that it had long since gone as an alternative to the European Community. I did not believe that we should retire into our shell. I was entirely opposed to the parish-pump, little-England nationalism that we heard in those days. Since my conversion on the road to Damascus—perhaps I should say on the road to the conference centre in Brighton—I have constantly supported our membership of the Community.
In that speech, I certainly opposed federalism, and I still do. I do not envisage a united states of Europe, nor does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as he has made clear repeatedly. However, we want to influence the development of Europe. In that powerful speech so long ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said:
If we go into Europe, it is not in the spirit of defeat, despair or disillusionment. It is in the determination to lead and to form and to shape the policies of a really strong and resourceful West.
Those are fine words, which I wholly endorse today, even if my right hon. Friend does not.
We shape such policies by working with allies in the European Community and playing in the team, not squawking on the touchline. Some say, thus far and no further. That is to treat the Community as a dead thing. It certainly is not a dead thing: it is a live and moving organism. It brings forward or moves back. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants it to move forward, but in the right direction. That is why he negotiated so skilfully and successfully at Maastricht, avoiding some of the nonsense that prevailed at that time.
One such nonsense is the issue that concerns us tonight —the social chapter. For years, I have been concerned about unemployment. When I was in the Government, unemployment in this country rose to 1 million, and all hell was let loose. We then took certain initiatives and it went down to 700,000—we are still cursed about that. We then lost office, and it went up again under the succeeding Labour Government, as it inevitably does.
Unemployment is one of the greatest curses on our country and it will continue. It is a problem in the whole of Europe and, indeed, in many other parts of the world. It will not be solved by the expansion of great companies,


because so many of them have adapted their affairs and made structural changes. The only way to solve unemployment is through the growth of small and medium-sized firms in Britain and Europe.
Small firms have always been a cause dear to my heart. It seems absolutely ridiculous and wholly contrary to the battle to reduce unemployment to put further burdens on them. We should be reducing the burdens on people who are expanding their firms, rather than putting more burdens on them.
Although Labour Members may argue that it is not as bad as all that, the plain fact is that people who run those firms and those who work to make them develop believe that we should not impose on them the burden of the social chapter. That is the basic economic reason why it is right —and the Prime Minister was absolutely right—to opt out of the social chapter.

Sir Russell Johnston: The small and medium-sized firms about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned are specifically excluded from the operation of the social chapter.

Sir Anthony Grant: The whole point is that small firms do not stay small; they grow and develop, and must take on more employees. The undesirability of the social chapter was well illustrated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said that the social chapter provides for an expansion of treaty-based Community competence into areas of wage bargaining and social security that should rightly remain with member states or individual firms and citizens. I entirely agree. The right hon. Gentleman said that after the Prime Minister negotiated the treaty, so I cannot understand why he is now standing on his head.
The Confederation of Business Industry made its position clear when it said:
Good employee involvement. for example, is the product of the individual company, the individual workplace—not of EC directives.
The decision to reject the social chapter is absolutely right, and should be supported tonight.
People are immensely bored with our activities in the House, and the rest of the world is completely mystified. People want us to get on with restoring our economy and our prosperity. They want us to deal with matters such as the reform of our criminal justice system. They know that this issue has been debated almost interminably. It has been voted on repeatedly and has always been passed by this House and another place.
People regard the court case that is taking place as absolutely preposterous, as I do. In my parliamentary life, I have always opposed most strongly Parliament interfering with the work of the courts. It is equally preposterous that the courts should interfere with the workings of Parliament, so I disregard that ludicrous performance.
My hon. Friends who are sceptics and rebels are my hon. Friends, and will remain so in every way. They have shown considerable courage, and I respect them greatly for that. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) is right and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) is wrong, I respect them for their views and the courage that they have shown.
However, they have been fighting past battles. In 1972, we had a great battle over entry into the Common Market.

We had a tremendous battle over the Single European Act, which was whipped through the House with great ferocity. Those are past battles.
We have had endless debates on the Maastricht treaty, but now the battles are over. Despite the courage of my hon. Friends, I would ask them not to fight this fight. They should not repeat Custer's last stand—we all know what happened to him. We do not want Cash's last stand to take place.
Before my hon. Friends decide to vote with the Labour party, they should reflect on my final observation. I suppose that I am one of the few hon. Members who is old enough to have just known action in the far east at the tail end of the war. The House will recall that everyone admired the immense courage of the kamikaze pilots. I do not recall, however, that, in any of their exploits, kamikaze pilots crashed themselves into their own ships.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Our role in this House is essentially to enact social provision. We may have different views about how that should be done and how wealth should be created and distributed, but the condition of the people is, or should be, our prime concern, because we represent the people. The policies we adopt should reflect that responsibility.
As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the problem with the social protocol is that its areas of responsibility are limited. We should not have any illusions about it being the means by which a great deal of social provision can be enacted. At best, that protocol is like a set of hooks, on which we can hang different forms of social provision. We must, however, obtain the agreed regulations and directives from the various insititutions of the European Community to hang upon those hooks. That prototocol does not instigate a programme of massive social reform and improvement. I wish that it did.
The Prime Minister has said that the social chapter is a tool for socialism. I rather favour socialism, and I am all for the means by which socialist ideas could be expounded and social provision made. The social chapter is not, however, an encyclical written by Karl Marx. We are not trying to get in on the act, because the social protocol is subject to many limitations.
As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, even if we opt out, there is sufficient in the Maastricht treaty to achieve the things that are laid down within the social protocol. That may not be done as easily and as readily as it would be if the social chapter was in place, but we know that the EC is an ever-changing institution. It will grow and develop because of the Maastricht treaty, and its competence will extend considerably to cover social provision.
The opt-out is likely to run up against other provisions of the treaty of Rome and the Maastricht treaty. Article 101 of the treaty of Rome may be used to contain the operation of the opt-out. If the opt-out did work, however, and if it had some fantastic impact—after all, we are talking about a significant piece of legislation—I do not believe that it would save jobs. I believe that it would have the opposite effect.
We must consider how multinationals will operate in the future. If we choose to opt out of the social chapter, those multinationals that must occasionally rationalise their activities will choose to do so in the United Kingdom.


It will be easier for them to do so because, in other European countries, the social provisions of the social chapter will hem in the way in which capital can act and work.
I do not believe that the Maastricht treaty represents the best means of extending social provision. The best way in which to do that is through the development of democracy—to follow the pattern established in the House. Various people have fought for democratic provisions. A statue in the Members Lobby commemorates Disraeli, who was involved in the introduction of the Reform Act 1867. Shortly after that, under a new Parliament, Forster's Education Act of 1870 initiated the general provision of education. Forster said that it was time to educate the masters, because the people had begun to have a say and a vote.
Another statue in the Members Lobby commemorates Lloyd George, who introduced the people's Budgets of 1909 and 1910, and pension provisions. A statue of Attlee is also out in the Lobby; the welfare state was established when he was Prime Minister of the 1945–51 Labour Government.
Once people have been given democratic provisions, they can use them to press for social provisions. We need arrangements in Europe to extend democratic provision. We need to abandon Maastricht and go back to the drawing board. We need to put in place a fully fledged, federal, democratic system, because that will enable legislation on social welfare and social provision to be introduced.
The Maastricht treaty will lead us towards bureaucratic centralism and will develop still further the institutions of the Community. Many of them operate secretly. The procedures of the Council of Ministers are still not open to scrutiny. The real parliament that exists within the Community is the Council of Ministers, but its meetings are held in secret. We are provided with no decent details of its voting record. Those details are beginning to be nudged out in this Parliament because I have pursued a campaign to obtain that information from parliamentary questions.
Within the Community, there is no means by which the European Parliament can learn about the votes within the Council of Ministers. The Edinburgh summit was supposed to represent a great advance in democratic accountability, but it has not meant that the key institution of the Community, the Council of Ministers, is now open to scrutiny. Subsidiarity has done nothing to break the centralising nature of the Maastricht treaty.
If the opt-out provisions work—I do not believe that they are significant enough to work—they would hit the island of Ireland hard. Northern Ireland would be subject to the opt-out, but Ireland would be subject to subsequent social provisions. How does that affect the supposed arrangements under Anglo-Irish provisions that say that there should be some common developments in that area? Northern Ireland has been used in a quite outrageous way in tonight's debate. Things that involve Northern Ireland have nothing to do with Maastricht.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) argued some of those points, but time is running out, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I feel strongly that,

whether talking of Select Committees, improved procedures or proper local government, Northern Ireland should be dealt with in its own right and there should be no attempt to use Northern Irish Members as Lobby fodder in the debate.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Since we all begin with confessions, I am a Conservative who is not as anxious about the social protocol as some of my colleagues. I would certainly prefer to have the Maastricht treaty with the social chapter than to have no Maastricht treaty at all, but that is not the real point. In politics, important messages must often be reduced to simple terms if they are to get through at all. The message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues have sought to get through is that the European Community is already dangerously uncompetitive, but I shall return to that.
Through a long succession of debates and eventual success of negotiations, my right hon. Friend secured a complete reversal of the European Community's attitudes towards competition and its own competitiveness.
Last summer, I went to Bordeaux to meet a French politician and friend. When I got there, I discovered, to my amazement, that he was helping to organise the no vote in the French referendum. He was totally clear why he was doing so. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had achieved a much better deal for the United Kingdom than the French negotiators had achieved for France, my friend was determined to shipwreck the entire treaty to try to regain the competitive position that he felt France had lost.
In one sense, it hardly matters how the vote goes tonight, because the European Community has so absorbed the message that my right hon. Friend was trying to get across that, even if the social chapter were to be incorporated into United Kingdom legislation, the European Community would be wary about imposing most of the obligations under the social chapter, for fear of losing out to the rest of the world.
We are indeed uncompetitive. One of the most striking features of the debate is that little has been made of the extraordinary rise in the competitiveness of the Asian-Pacific rim, to name but one section of the world. The growth of the European Community and its share of visible exports is shrinking, and we are outpaced by China, Malaysia and other Asian-Pacific nations.
It is rich of the Labour party to berate the Government for having such enormous unemployment. All of us are distressed by that, but how does the Labour party explain the fact that, of all the countries in the European Community, ours has the second highest percentage of its working-age population in employment?
It is rich of the Labour party to berate us for low productivity and low investment. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is exactly because of the legacy of the socialist Government that such things as the dock labour scheme—which took many years finally to eradicate—totally discouraged the sort of investment which Labour now blames us for not having increased more quickly.
I was delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition make it so clear that he has totally reversed the Labour party's attitudes to alien employers. Indeed, I am struck by


the fact that the Japanese, whom he was so keen to praise, have made it clear that they are not prepared to accept the traditional attitudes to unions in the workplace.
I share the view held by many Opposition Members and by many of my hon. Friends that the United Kingdom's future does not lie in being a low-wage economy. Just as I believe that the United Kingdom should welcome the move away from national wage bargaining within this country, so I believe that it is barmy to try to determine centrally in the European Community the conditions of employment in all the countries of the Community.
The ratios of wage-related costs are as follows: in Germany, the figure is approximately 50, in the United Kingdom, the figure is 30, and in China, the figure is five. That is such a huge difference that United Kingdom employers will be bound to take much of their manufacturing work abroad. They will export British jobs to keep British firms in business.
We need high-tech, high-skill employment. That is why I welcome the fact that, in the past five years, there has been an increase in the British work force of over 2 million people who have an A-level or equivalent. I am delighted that the Department of Education has set a target that one third of 18-year-olds should be in higher education in the year 2000.
If we secure an economy of high-skill and high-tech employment, it is inconceivable that employers, whether large or small, will be able to compete with one another for rare skills by driving down the levels of working conditions. It is perfectly clear that, in such an economy, employers will find themselves, through force of competition, driving up the levels of conditions without any imposition from the European Community.
I accept that there will be fierce arguments within the European Community, for as far ahead as any of of us in the Chamber can see, on organisation, on policies and on the aspirations of the European Community. After all—none of its members is present in the Chamber at the moment—there are fierce arguments between the Scottish National party and the rest of the United Kingdom, despite almost 300 years of the Union of the Crowns.
The competition between different parts of the United Kingdom can hardly have been better illustrated than by the recent argument between Devonport and Rosyth. The European Community will never become the Community that we want it to be unless arguments between different parts of the Community are conducted in the spirit in which we have arguments within the United Kindom.
I remain convinced that the outcome of such debates will be infinitely preferable to the ways in which we resolved our disputes throughout this century. We were reminded earlier that, throughout this century, we have tried to resolve disputes between different parts of what is now the Europen Community by plunging the whole world into war. I strongly believe that the Government are right in their view, and I am happy to vote with them this evening.

Mr. Giles Radice: This afternoon, the Prime Minister staked his future and the Government's future on the social opt-out. I suspect that he is staking his future on something that few have read. When we debated the social opt-out in Committee, I read out the social protocol. Conservative Members looked at me with

astonishment because none of them had understood what was in it. It is an extremely mild declaration of principles and it lays down a mechanism by which those principles can be achieved. The main advance of the measure is that it extends majority voting beyond health and safety to working conditions, the information and consultation of workers, equal opportunities and integration of persons excluded from the labour market. How many Conservative Members are against those things? I suspect that the answer is, not many. At least, they are not saying that to their constituents.
The measure also gives the EC competence in social security, in social protection and in other areas. But those areas are subject to veto and the issues of pay, the right of association, the right to strike, the right to impose lock-outs are specifically excluded from the social protocol. Article 2 says that directives must take into account the needs of small and medium-sized businesses. It says also that the measures must take account of the different forms of national employment practices and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the EC economy.
The document is mild, and the economic arguments against it are thin indeed. The arguments are purely political. The social opt-out exists because it was used to buy the support of the Thatcherites at the time of Maastricht. The Conservative Government were offered a weaker version and, because of the pressure from the former Secretary of State for Employment, did not take the opportunity. As a result of that decision, we are where we are today.
The Prime Minister says that there is not a majority for the social protocol. I believe that he is wrong—there is a majority. There are many Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who are in favour of the social protocol. There are other Conservative Members who would support the protocol, rather than see ratification blocked.
If the Labour amendment is carried, and if the amended motion is carried tonight, the Government should accept the decision. They cannot hide behind the outdated doctrine of the royal prerogative. Parliament's will should prevail. I support ratification and the social protocol, and I hope that tonight we will achieve it.

Dr. John Cunningham: I should begin by apologising to the House for the state of my voice, from which it will be obvious that I will not be shouting in the debate. In view of the treatment that was given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition during his speech, however, I will not be shouted down.
The debate has taken place exactly because of the success of the Labour party in securing the inclusion of section 7 in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. Throughout the long drawn-out process, our aim was always to secure the adoption of the social chapter for the benefit of the people of Britain and our economy generally. That was, and remains, our consistent view.
Two other issues have emerged subsequently—the attempt to use the courts to circumvent the decisions of the House of Commons, and the apparent unwillingness of the Government to accept decisions taken in the Chamber. Both represent fundamental challenges to democratic government and to the authority of the House of Commons.
It is important to deal with those matters in addition to the merits of the social chapter. First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) on his speech. He is my Member of Parliament, and I am delighted to have his support in the Chamber this evening. I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), together with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), on their speeches.
The House is having the debate because the Government, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, accepted the Labour new clause 74—now section 7 of the Act. He said at that time:
If new clause 74 is accepted, we shall abide by it.
There was no hint there that the Government would not accept the result of the debate which would ensue.
The Foreign Secretary also said:
We have no difficulty in accepting the challenge with which the proposers of new clause 74 present us.
Indeed, he implied in that speech that the vote tonight would be the definitive decision of the House, as we intended it to be. He said:
That will enable the House to vote on the merits of the social protocol itself."—[Official Report, 22 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 548–49.]
Throughout the proceedings, the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly asserted that the House of Commons was the place where decisions should legitimately be made indeed, had to be made. He said:
As Parliament is sovereign it is clear that it could decide … we owe our constituents our judgment, and if we decline to exercise that judgment we are to some extent damaging the authority of Parliament.
In respect of the third stage of economic and monetary union, the Foreign Secretary said:
the Government have specifically and successfully reserved the decision for the House of Commons … Governments are elected to govern and, in this case, to propose, just as parliaments in the United Kingdom are elected to decide and, indeed, to dispose … The decision for Britain lies where it belongs—in the hands of the British Parliament."—[Official Report, 21 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 453 and 458.]
So, throughout our proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear that he expected the House of Commons to take the decisions. That is the real reason why he is not here tonight and why he will not reply to the debate. What the Foreign Secretary said destroys the argument that the Prime Minister put to the House of Commons earlier today. The Prime Minister said that the debate was some sort of device and that the House had no business moving the amendment provided for in the Act of Parliament.
So the House is having the debate. However, no hint that the Government would not accept the result was given until it became apparent that the Government were in trouble. That is the reality. We agreed with what the Foreign Secretary had to say in his various speeches. Both Houses of Parliament agreed with him on the specific issue of the referendum. But now the Government are apparently saying, "We did not want a referendum. We did not want the people to decide, but now we shall not accept the decision of the House of Commons either."
In other words, the Government do not want anyone to decide but themselves. What duplicity. What hypocrisy. What a reneging on their fundamental position that parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and decisions in this Chamber, were the proper way and the only way to make decisions about the Maastricht treaty. Now that the Government have gone back on their word, I am not surprised that the Foreign Secretary is not with us tonight.
Like many others, on Tuesday I observed the Prime Minister wriggling under questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister was unwilling to give a straight answer to a straight question. Earlier we witnessed his dreadful evasions when he was questioned by the BBC's Jonathan Dimbleby. It was pass after pass: clearly, the Prime Minister could never be a candidate for "Mastermind". It is as well for him that his Government have not yet abolished the right to silence. The Prime Minister seems determined to die in the last ditch of prevarication on this matter.
But now an entirely novel concept of parliamentary democracy has emerged. It is, apparently, that the Government need not accept a decision of the House of Commons because of the nature and quality of the majority. We know that the European Community already has qualified majority voting, but this is a new and ridiculous argument. It seems that, if this was a boxing match, we would have to knock the Government out to get a draw.
The theory has great flexibility. Governments need not accept defeat because there were too many Scots in the Lobby, or too many Irish, or too many Welsh people, or too many women, or too many people who write with their left hand. The possibilities are endless.
Perhaps I ought to remind the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends that it was a Tory, Winston Churchill—and he was a Tory at the time—who said "One is enough." If we win the votes tonight, we shall expect the Government to accede to the wishes of the House of Commons.
The Government's argument on that issue—like their case against the social chapter—is bogus. Where were these people and arguments in November 1992? The Government did not care then who joined them in the Lobby, or how they got them there: all they cared about was a majority of the House of Commons.
Is this the same Prime Minister who said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in June 1992:
common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House."?—[Official Report, 3 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 832.]
Or is it, more accurately, really the kind of Government described by Disraeli, who said:
A Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy"?
This is dangerous and unacceptable behaviour. If the Prime Minister and the Government ride roughshod over the decisions of the House of Commons, how can they call upon the people to accept other decisions of the House? The authority of this place would be seriously undermined. The reputation of the House is already too precarious for us to accept any further serious damage to it.
Is it not the inevitable outcome of the Government's position that other tangled webs of wealthy people, whether living in Britain or abroad, would seek to


circumvent or undermine in the courts the decisions of the House? Would they not always be able to produce sanctimonious dupes such as Lord Rees-Mogg to give a superficial but threadbare respectability to their plans?
We should not accept these developments, Madam Speaker. Your ruling yesterday, in response to the important questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, is of fundamental importance to the House, the nature of our democratic decision making and its future well-being. You deserve the thanks and support of everyone here—and, more important, of our constituents.
Rarely in my experience have a Government used such bogus arguments to avoid defeat on such a bogus case. The Tory case against the social chapter is a ragbag of half-truths, deceptions and downright fabrications. The dishonesty of the Government's case has been completely exposed in this as in earlier debates on the subject.
At Maastricht, the Prime Minister erected the social chapter as a threat to Britain and Europe. He was isolated —no one else agreed—and he planned the opt-out as a political insurance policy to ease the passage of the legislation. He failed. Even a superficial examination of the social chapter demonstrates that the claim that it is a charter for industrial unrest is completely untrue.
Article 2.6 of the chapter says:
The provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs.
It applies to working conditions, information and consultation of workers on the basis of qualified majority voting. It applies also to social security, protection from dismissal, collective bargaining, employment conditions and job creation, but on the basis of unanimity.
The social chapter includes the novel provisions drafted by unions and employers, including the TUC and the CBI, enabling flexibility to be built in by collective agreements, replacing or complementing legislation. As we have all pointed out again and again, pay, the right to strike or impose lock-outs are explicitly excluded from legislation agreed under the social chapter.
As yet there is not even an action programme of legislation for the social chapter. The Commission is currently putting together a Green Paper on the future of social policy. All Governments are invited to make submissions. Perhaps the most interesting question will be how far the legislative route will be used and how much use will be made of the more flexible procedure, leaving those involved—unions and employers—to reach agreement on common standards.
What is clear is that the British Government will be excluded from those deliberations. British Commissioners, Members of the European Parliament, trade unionists and employers, as members of the economic and social committee, will have a formal role, but Britain's Government will be excluded from all the deliberations.
The only people who oppose the social chapter are the British Conservatives and the French neo-fascists: by their friends shall ye know them. Try as they might to dupe the British people or garner support for their reactionary views, the Government have totally failed. The European summit in Edinburgh at the end of the British presidency reaffirmed the commitment to the social chapter and urged Britain to join. That remains the unanimous view of It partners in spite of ministerial allegations, including those to the contrary from the Foreign Secretary.
Tories in Britain want Europe to be simply a big business club. We want a Europe with a continuously developing social dimension in the interests of greater efficiency and social cohesion. Our view is supported by industrialists such as Mr. Peter Wickens and others at Nissan who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Employment earlier this year. In March, he said:
all I know is that any company that seeks to pay low wages ends up receiving low-quality, low-calibre employees. What we have got to do, in this country … is to be high-wage with a high-quality workforce, achieving high productivity and high quality products; that is the equation that we need, not low wage, low quality, low productivity. That is the route that is doomed to failure and disaster".
The House should also know that, when taking evidence in Japan, the Select Committee received exactly the same opinion from Aiwa, Fujitsu, Komatsu, Nissan, NSK and the Sony Corporation.
Another myth is that small businesses would be hit by the social chapter, yet article 2.2 of the social chapter specifically says:
To this end, the Council may adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation, having regard to the conditions and technical rules obtaining in each of the Member States. Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.
The social chapter specifically recognises
the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community";
and Labour certainly wants to see a successful, efficient, productive Community.
The truth is that the Government do not want, as the Prime Minister claims, a nation at ease with itself. Unlike us, the Government do not want more equalities in British society. They want to return to an era where there was little social protection for millions of British workers, but they are not supported by Britain's best employers in that aim. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) in particular exploded the myth that British companies such as ICI would be badly affected if the social chapter was implemented.
The Government want a labour market that exploits young people, women and ethnic communities in particular—in short, a deregulated labour market. But Britain can never succeed on that basis. Hong Kong has labour costs only 25 per cent. of those in Britain, and the figure for Taiwan is 35 per cent. and for Korea 35 per cent. They will always undercut our labour costs. Our failure is on unit labour costs compared with the United States of America, Japan, Germany and France. Our failing is because of low skills, low investment and low productivity.
As ever, the Tory party emerges from these debates as what it always has been—the party of exploitation of ordinary people. It is the party that always wants to pay those at the top more, to to give those at the top more power and more security to make them perform better, but those at the bottom are denied support and protection: they must be paid less, trained less, protected less and made less secure to make them perform better.
So we ask the House to join us in the Lobby tonight to give British people the advantages, the support, of the social chapter and to ensure the British people the support of a House of Commons that protects them, upholds its decisions and requires Governments to act upon them.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): This has been a debate without precedent. It is not a debate about the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is now an Act. It is a debate about the fundamental aspect of the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In doing so, he secured an opt out from a protocol relating to an agreement for social policy.
Several hon. Members have misunderstood the differences between the social protocol, the social agreement, the social chapter and the social charter. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spelt out exactly what we are talking about. This debate is about the effect that the protocol would have on jobs in the United Kingdom and indeed, were it to come into effect, the very damaging impact that it would have on business.
I took the side of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—if he is paying attention to the debate. When he is ready, I will, if I may, refer to his speech. I wanted to reply to a point that he made. The right hon. and learned Member depicted the social contract that he described between employers and unions, in the form of the protocol relating to social policy, as a matter of considerable importance. He was not in the House to listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who described the social protocol as a matter of comparatively little importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) also described the social protocol as something that did not really matter. I must therefore return the debate to the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the outset, when he set the agenda by describing the damaging effect that the social protocol would have upon business and jobs.
I do not have to do anything other than to refer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) to the words of the president of the Confederation of British Industry. The hon. Member said a few moments ago that the social protocol was something of which no business man should be afraid. The president of the CBI said:
Community interference in such social policies is far more likely to destroy jobs than enhance their quality".
There are about 18 million unemployed people in the Community. The president of the CBI went on to say on behalf of the CBI:
A Common vote tonight, leading to the inclusion of the social chapter in the ratified Maastricht treaty would set back the cause of common sense and competitiveness in Europe by several years".
I refer my hon. Friends to the following comment:
Members of Parliament should bear that in mind as they wrestle with their consciences today".
A statement issued a short time ago by the Institute of Directors says that the social chapter is
a job destruction machine which will kill jobs by piling up the costs of employment,
The director general of the IOD, Mr. Morgan, has said:
The Maastricht Treaty has already become law. It would be folly now to add the Social Chapter to it.
I say that particularly in answer to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. Mr. Morgan continued:
What the European Community needs now is not a charter for the destruction of jobs by pricing them out of the

market but forward looking policies which would enable firms to create more jobs and for people to establish new companies

Mr. Carttiss: Can the Secretary of State explain, and understand, how Conservatives who have campaigned to deregulate British industry to enable us to compete in world markets, and who are totally opposed to increasing the Brussels bureaucracy's shackles on this country, can vote for the social protocol tonight?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) is absolutely right.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East earlier sought to quote UNICE in favour of the social protocol. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should reflect on the words of the president of UNICE, who said to Employment Ministers:
Please, stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs.
One has only to look at what has been said in Japan recently. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) quoted the Toyota company, but the director of the Japanese equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Ota, has expressed his concern about the consequences of the social chapter on labour flexibility and wage costs. He made it clear that the Japanese would take that factor into account in future investment decisions.
Anyone who knows what is happening in Japan today knows that any Japanese firm considering firm considering further investment in the European Community will be watching our debate carefully to see if any message comes from the House of Commons to show that we shall have any truck with the social protocol.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister has referred to the social agreement and the social charter. My understanding is that the agreement puts into effect that charter's terms. If it is so damaging, why have Her Majesty's Government not published' it, as they have admitted in a written answer today?

Mr. Hunt: I will answer the hon. Gentleman. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will read the protocol carefully to see what is contains. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Yes, I will
.
The preamble to the protocol states that 11 member states
wish to continue along the path laid down in the 1989 Social Charter".
The protocol continues to authorise those 11 member states to have recourse to all the procedures and mechanisms of the treaty for the purpose of taking, among themselves, decisions relating to the social chapter referred to in the preamble. The protocol contains a clear statement that Acts adopted by the Council and any financial consequences shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is explicitly excluded.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East omitted to mention in his description of the agreement that article 2 applies to working conditions. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. and learned Member forgot to mention those conditions. The sort of question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is directly relevant when we consider the topics that could come under working conditions.
To my hon. Friends who do not fear the effect of that article, I must say that a document has come into my hands from the European Trades Union Congress. Let us consider what they mean by "working conditions"—precisely the sort of danger that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and many others, have given as the reason why they cannot support the social protocol. The document is in French, but I shall endeavour to give a translation.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: A few minutes ago, my right hon. Friend referred to the position adopted by the Liberals and their attitude to the social chapter. Is he aware that while the leader of the Liberals, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), was extolling the merits of the social chapter this afternoon, a spokesman for Westland Helicopters, the largest employer in his Yeovil constituency, issued a statement saying:
We support the CBI's opposition to the social chapter because we want to be competitive in Europe and ire the world.
That is the approach of any business, whether or not it supports the Conservatives.

Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Member for Yeovil was wrong about Toyota, as I have just explained. He is now wrong about Westland and about the effect of the social chapter on British business.

Mr. Richard Spring: My right hon. Friend knows that during the late 1980s employment grew rapidly and that 70 per cent. of that growth in employment was in the small business sector. Can my right hon. Friend speculate on the appalling damage that would be done to the revival of small businesses, which have been helped by the Budget proposals, by the imposition of the social charter?

Mr. Hunt: Yes. That is why the European TUC would like to introduce the following measures, which come under working conditions. First, it would like the inclusion of social clauses in public contracts. I dread to think what that would mean. Secondly, it wants equality of treatment for all third-country nationals dwelling legally in the Community. Thirdly it wants harmonisation of certain social protection objectives and policies. Next, it wants psychological and stress problems associated with working conditions and surroundings to be addressed. It also wants work performed at home and night work to come under working conditions.
Opposition Members should be made aware of the fact that under the protocol on social policy it is possible to bring forward a measure that would ban all overtime throughout the European Community, as well as all night work. That is what we are talking about when we say that we do not accept the social charter.
We know why Opposition Members want the social charter. Jacques Delors explained to the TUC that what it could not get through the front door of British politics it could get through the back door of Brussels. It was such an overwhelming speech that Mr. Willis made the memorable phrase, "Delors is my shepherd." We on this side are not part of the Delors flock.

Sir Jim Spice: My right hon. Friend knows that a quarter of all the people who work at Westland live in my constituency and that there are 50

sub-contractors for Westland in the south of England, including seven in Christchurch. Not one of the people who work at Westland—the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) does not want to listen to to this because he has no answer to it—and who know how competitive Westland must be against all other competitors would vote for the social chapter. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Yeovil has spoken to anyone in Westland about that.

Mr. Hunt: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point as we are giving examples of the type of damaging directives that could come into effect under the social protocol. On only Monday of this week Brussels presented us with a new proposal for a directive on parental leave. It would allow a man or woman to take up to nine and a half months' leave in a single year. In addition, the working time directive provides for one month's leave, which means a total of ten and a half months' leave out of 12. If the Opposition believe that any business or any economy could operate on that basis, they do not understand economics.
If my hon. Friends read article 4, they must be convinced of the dangers of what I have read out. Under article 4, it is perfectly possible for the European TUC to introduce a measure which is then an agreement concluded at Community level. That agreement would come into force without ever coming anywhere near the House of Commons. Is that the type of measure that we should be accepting? I warn the Opposition that we should not play dangerous games with the future economic life of this country.
To reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom have a very long-standing commitment to oppose Europe and what it stands for, I confirm that I respect what they have said in the past and what they have said today. The Prime Minister made it very clear earlier today that our present plans are exactly as he said, but for the avoidance of doubt I repeat them.
It is not the Government's present intention to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism or to move to a single currency. We negotiated an opt-out at Maastricht as the Government considered it to be in the interests of the United Kingdom to do so. It is the Government's policy that any matters involving foreign affairs or defence and security should remain subject to unanimity. I know that that will do much to reassure several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but the important issue that we now face—

Mr. John Sykes: My right hon. Friend knows that I speak as a northern manufacturer. Does he agree that many Opposition Members would not know a business if it jumped up and slapped them in the face? Does he also agree that the provisions of the social chapter would throw hundreds of thousands of people in this country out of work?

Mr. Hunt: I agree. What the House must understand is that there are very serious dangers in sending out the wrong message from the House.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever happens tonight, the Government will continue to fight the so-called social—in


reality job-destroying—legislation emanating from Brussels, just as he is fighting the working time directive through the European Court at the moment?

Mr. Hunt: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) that I have here the legal case that we propose to put before the European Court when fighting the working time directive. However, if we accept the Opposition's amendment tonight, I might as well tear up—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. [interruption.] Order. Mr. Banks! [Interruption.] Order. The House will settle down for the last few minutes.

Mr. Hunt: You are right, Madam Speaker, to stress that this debate is one of historical importance. When the House votes tonight we shall be sending a clear message about the sort of Europe, and the sort of United Kingdom, that we want to see. Whatever the motives—

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any Member of the House who votes for the social chapter tonight will have to explain to hundreds of his or her constituents why that vote is costing them their jobs? Such hon. Members will have that on their conscience for ever.

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Whatever the motives for Members' voting decisions tonight, the message must be clear. I want the House to vote for the sort of Europe where entrepreneurs and individuals can make their own choices—a Europe of diversity, enterprise, and personal freedom. If Conservative Members consider voting with the Opposition they are playing into the hands of those who would destroy the livelihoods of the people of this country.
Who would applaud most loudly if the proposed social chapter were ever to be forced upon us? It would be those who have lost their power over 14 years of Conservative government, and who yearn for the bad old days. And we know who they are. They are the militants who called strikes at the drop of a hat without thought of a ballot, the shop steward brigade who cared not a jot for the companies that they bargained over, and the armchair reformers who were prepared to tolerate anything but the idea of companies making profits. Those are the people who would smile if the Opposition amendment were passed.
The electorate has rejected the Labour party at four successive general elections. The front door to power has slammed firmly shut. No wonder they are slinking round to the back door. It used to be beer and sandwiches at No. 10. Now they want claret and croissants with the Commission.
If hon. Members wish to vote for the Opposition amendment, let them be clear what they will be voting for. They will be voting to overturn the reforms that we have fought so hard for over the past 14 years. They will be voting to put the trade unions back into the driving seat, not just here but in Europe. If, on the other hand, hon. Members share our vision of a Europe in which power moves increasingly away from Brussels bureaucrats to ordinary men and women—the very people whom we in the House represent—if they want a Europe of free trade, competition and open markets: if they want a Europe in

which free people create jobs through individual effort and enterprise, they will support the Government tonight, both in rejecting the Opposition amendment and in supporting the Government resolution.
I recognise that some Members of my own party have real and genuine doubts about many aspects of the European Community. They have been consistent in fighting for their views and they have fought conscientiously and determinedly against the Maastricht Bill. But that Bill is now an Act. My hon. Friends have been motivated by a determination to see the United Kingdom play the right role in Europe, but surely that is a role based on the principles that brought us together as members of the Conservative and Unionist party—principles that we have refreshed and renewed in the light of changes in our social and economic reality.
I, and everyone on the Conservative Benches, share a concern about the future of this country. There is only one place for the United Kingdom to be in the Europe of the next century and that is leading from the front in the Europe of freedom, enterprise and initiative. I urge the House to throw out the Opposition amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 317, Noes 317

Division No. 358]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cann, Jamie


Adams, Mrs Irene
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Ainger, Nick
Cash. William


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Alton, David
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Connarty, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Corbett, Robin


Bayley, Hugh
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corston, Ms Jean


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Blair, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Blunkett, David
Darling, Alistair


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boyce, Jimmy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Denham, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H.


Butcher, John
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Callaghan, Jim
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Mrs Margaret






Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Litherland, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Livingstone, Ken


Fisher, Mark
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Flynn, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foulkes, George
McAllion, John


Fraser, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCartney, Ian


Galbraith, Sam
Macdonald, Calum


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
McGrady, Eddie


Garrett, John
McKelvey, William


George, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McLeish, Henry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McMaster, Gordon


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mildred
Madden, Max


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mahon, Alice


Gould, Bryan
Mallon, Seamus


Graham, Thomas
Mandelson, Peter


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gunnell, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Meacher, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Meale, Alan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michael, Alun


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Henderson, Doug
Milburn, Alan


Hendron, Dr Joe
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mowlam, Marjorie


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mudie, George


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Hara, Edward


Hume, John
Olner, William


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Parry, Robert


Jamieson, David
Patchett, Terry


Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Pickthall, Colin


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Keen, Alan
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Redmond, Martin


Khabra, Piara S.
Reid, Dr John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Richardson, Jo


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Leigh, Edward
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara





Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dennis


Salmond, Alex
Tyler, Paul


Sedgemore, Brian
Vaz, Keith


Sheerman, Barry
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wallace, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walley, Joan


Short, Clare
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Simpson, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watson, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wise, Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Stevenson, George
Wright, Dr Tony


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Dr. Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Tapsell, Sir Peter





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clappison, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks. Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack. Patrick


Bates, Michael
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Critchley, Julian


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bendall. Vivian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)






Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Gallic. Phil
Maginnis, Ken


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Cheryl
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel


Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hannam, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Hargreaves, Andrew
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Needham, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Nelson, Anthony


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hendry, Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom





Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trimble, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Soames, Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stephen, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sykes, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Thornton, Sir Malcolm



Thurnham, Peter

Madam Speaker: The numbers being equal, it is my duty to cast my vote. It is not the function of the Chair to create a majority on a policy issue where no majority exists amongst the rest of the House. In accordance with precedent, I therefore cast my vote with the Noes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 324.

Division No. 359]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Amess, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Brandreth, Gyles


Arbuthnot. James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butler, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carrington, Matthew


Bates, Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beggs, Roy
Churchill, Mr


Bellingham, Henry
Clappison, James


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coe, Sebastian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek






Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maginnis, Ken


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gillan, Cheryl
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mates, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Milligan, Stephen


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moate, Sir Roger


Harris, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Nick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawksley, Warren
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Needham, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Nelson, Anthony


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hendry, Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley





Oppenheim, Phillip
Stephen, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Stern, Michael


Page, Richard
Stewart, Allan


Paice, James
Streeter, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sykes, John


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thomason, Roy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Richards, Rod
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trimble, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Ward, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wood, Timothy


Spink, Dr Robert
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sproat, Iain



Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Steen, Anthony





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Adams, Mrs Irene
Body, Sir Richard


Ainger, Nick
Boyce, Jimmy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Austin-Walker, John
Butcher, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Byers, Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cann, Jamie


Bennett, Andrew F.
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Benton, Joe
Cash, William


Bermingham, Gerald
Chisholm, Malcolm


Berry, Dr. Roger
Clapham, Michael


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Blair, Tony
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blunkett, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)






Clelland, David
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Cran, James
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hume, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davidson, Ian
Jamieson, David


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Denham, John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Keen, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Eastham, Ken
Khabra, Piara S.


Enright, Derek
Kilfoyle, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fatchett, Derek
Legg, Barry


Faulds, Andrew
Leigh, Edward


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Leighton, Ron


Fisher, Mark
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Litherland, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livingstone, Ken


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fraser, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fyfe, Maria
Loyden, Eddie


Galbraith, Sam
Lynne, Ms Liz


Galloway, George
McAllion, John


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Sir George
McCartney, Ian


Garrett, John
Macdonald, Calum


George, Bruce
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGrady, Eddie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McKelvey, William


Gill, Christopher
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McLeish, Henry


Godsiff, Roger
Maclennan, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
McMaster, Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
McNamara, Kevin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McWilliam, John


Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Graham, Thomas
Mahon, Alice


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mallon, Seamus


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mandelson, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Marlow, Tony


Gunnell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hall, Mike
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Hardy, Peter
Maxton, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Meacher, Michael


Harvey, Nick
Meale, Alan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Michael, Alun


Henderson, Doug
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)





Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Milburn, Alan
Short, Clare


Miller, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Soley, Clive


Mudie, George
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin. Chris
Spellar, John


Murphy, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Stevenson, George


Olner, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Paisley, Rev Ian
Sweeney, Walter


Parry, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pike, Peter L.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Turner, Dennis


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tyler, Paul


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Purchase, Ken
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wallace, James


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing. Robert N


Redmond, Martin
Watson, Mike


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew


Rendel, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Richardson, Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wilson, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony


Salmond, Alex
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Question accordingly negatived.

The Prime Minister: rose—

Madam Speaker: I call the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Seats are available in the Chamber; I ask hon. Members who are standing at the Bar to sit down.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House has not come to a resolution, as required by section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, and so the Act cannot come into force. We clearly cannot leave the matter there. Tonight's debate has shown that there is no majority in the House for the United Kingdom to join the social chapter; however, as we know, a majority of the House is in favour of ratifying the Maastricht treaty. I therefore invite the Members of the Opposition parties who say that they support ratification, and that they respect the opinion of the House, to reconsider their position.
We must resolve this issue; it cannot be allowed to fester any longer. I therefore give notice that the Government will invite the House to come to a resolution tomorrow in support of the Government's policy on the social chapter by tabling a motion of confidence in the following terms:
That the House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister may seek to maintain that there was no vote in the House for the social chapter; but there was no vote against it. The plain fact is that the House tied. I note that the Prime Minister has been driven to use the confidence factor because he cannot win the vote on any other terms. But, when he tables his resolution, we shall table an amendment that will give a tied House of Commons the opportunity to vote positively for the social chapter tomorrow.

Sir Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. One has to say that, in this tied vote, the Government have been willing to strengthen sectarian politics in Northern Ireland to deny workers' rights in the United Kingdom as a whole. The fact is that, in a free vote, there is a majority for the social chapter in the House, and we on this Bench shall continue to vote in that direction.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In your statement yesterday you quoted article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I ask you to consider overnight article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which says:
That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.
Under section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the House rejected the Government's policy—rejected it in accordance with a statute which the Government promoted and on which the House voted.
There is no provision for reversal under section 7. If the Prime Minister, using a vote of confidence, which is not catered for in section 7, were to seek to ratify the treaty by regal authority—the royal prerogative of ratification—would it be illegal? It is a matter that you, Madam Speaker, will wish to consider overnight, but I believe that the issue is whether the Government intend to defy Parliament or accept the clear vote of a rejection of their view.

PETITION

Unitary Authority Status (Meirionnydd)

Mr. Elfin Llwyd: With your leave, Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the House in support of unitary authority status for the old country of Meirionnydd, part of which I represent.
The petition bears 12,242 signatures and I support it strongly because the old county has been a unit of local authority since 1284. It was recently described by the district auditor as well run and proactive in nature. It reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House oppose the said proposals by Her Majesty's Government and provide that the historic district of Meirionnydd and adjoining areas shall be the area of the new unitary authority of Meirionnydd.

To lie upon the Table.

HIV (Government Policy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Miss Joan Lestor: I could not have picked a better night for the Adjournment debate. I raise the issue of AIDS and HIV in an attempt to discover the Government's current attitude towards the Day report and projections about the development of the disease in future.
It is a pity that leaks and speculations about the contents of the Day report took off well before its publication. Many who, prior to publication, claimed that the matter was being exaggerated, have not, to my knowledge, amended their comments in the light of the report. Andrew Neil frequently claims that there is little or no danger. He is quoted as saying,
You have more chance of being run over by a car on the way to see your girl friend than you have of contracting AIDS from them.
The use of the word "them" is interesting in that context, as is the absence of reference to protection and the reference to sex with them. The analogy is also interesting. We all try to make people, particularly the young, responsible in their attitude to traffic and I ask no more than that we extend the same principle to sexual activities.
I shall quote an extract from the paper by Professor Anderson and Robert May, in which they state:
The degree to which infection will be constrained within a small core of highly sexually active people depends on who mixes with whom: the network of sexual contacts among those who are very active sexually and those who are not. To define such a network, one must ask questions not only about numbers of sexual partners but also about
other matters in relation to their habits.
We must have a detailed answer from the Government on the Day report and matters related to it. In that connection, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on his ingenuity in raising the subject of education on HIV and AIDS during the debate on the guillotine motion on the Education Bill on Monday. He made a forthright and sensible speech. As I agreed with it and as time is limited, I shall not repeat his case, except to say that the Lords amendment was never discussed here. The country has never heard the arguments for and against keeping the teaching of AIDS in the core curriculum.
We are depriving our children of the right to be educated about such matters. In the light of the knowledge that we possess, it is indefensible for us to make it easier for our children to die of ignorance, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said. We all like to think that our children are innocent—they are until a certain age, but times have changed. We now know from the research that has been carried out that 35 per cent. of under-16s and 50 per cent. of under-18s have full sexual intercourse and one third use no protection—so we know that we have a problem. Some 20 per cent. of HIV infections in this country occur in the 15 to 25-year-old age group.
The Government have said—I support them in this—that they are anxious to reduce teenage pregnancies and other sexual problems and some sexual-related diseases. The Government should be seen to be effective. According to the reply given by the Minister on 12 July to my hon. friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury

(Mr. Smith), there are 500 reports of children in the United Kingdom born to women who are known to be infected with AIDS. Large numbers of those women were very young and many of them had had unprotected sex. Some 152 of those children are known to be uninfected, but the status of the rest is not yet known.
The worrying factor is that the results of unlinked, anonymous HIV surveys showed that there have been many pregnant women whose HIV infection was not known to the staff in the hospital. Therefore, there are an unknown number of children born to HIV infected women and their plight is yet to be known. Anyone who has looked at how AIDS has swept across certain continents and the effect that it is having on families and children, born only to die a few years later, knows that, although we do not have that problem here, we have no cause for complacency.
The Day report suggests that the number of AIDS cases will soon level off among homosexual men and that HIV infection is declining among drug users. The report, however, also predicts an increase in new cases of AIDS among heterosexuals and suggests that that increase will continue over the next few years.
I was also alarmed to read that, of men tested in Brighton—I stress, of those who came forward to be tested, because they were concerned—one in four homosexual men were infected and one in seven heterosexual men were infected. That figure may be due to the peculiar circumstances of that area, but we have to bear it in mind.
It is important also to bear in mind when we look at statistics that we cannot categorise people as belonging to one particular group: homosexual, heterosexual, drug takers, or whatever. In many instances, behaviour in one group can be found in another.
The Government's attitude is somewhat puzzling. That is why I applied for this Adjournment debate. The Government say that their policies have worked and that predictions about the spread of the AIDS virus have not been borne out by the facts. I am glad to hear it, as I am sure everybody is. If the policies that the Government have adopted are right, why on earth are they reducing the facilities that have contributed to keeping AIDS and HIV under control? It does not make sense.
The Government say that the figures in the Day report vindicate the policies that they have put into practice to fight the disease. Why, then, change those policies? When we look at the spread of any disease, we know that, if people grow careless about inoculation, the educative process has to start all over again.
Why are grants to voluntary organisations, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, being cut? Why are the Government putting an end to the ring fencing of AIDS funds? Why is the Department of Health AIDS unit being integrated with the communicable diseases branch? Why is the Health Education Authority being reorganised? What are the implications of all this for education campaigns and the independence of such an authority? Ring fencing provided additional resources, for the significant care implications of AIDS and HIV could not be met by the national health service budget.
The George House Trust in Manchester has done excellent work in dealing with victims of AIDS and the HIV virus. Its work has been acknowledged by many


people. The trust has entered into correspondence with the Department of Health about the cut in funds. It makes very worrying reading.
When he asked for extra funding, John Nicholson, who runs the George House Trust, said:
Nationally, the result of the F64 allocation is that direct Department funding continues to be restricted to the London national voluntary organisations. Regionally, the northwestern regional health authority continues to be unclear as to how it will organise funding for regional-wide voluntary organisations after the 1st April 1994 and continues not to fund them directly. Our core grant from the north-west regional health authority, through North Manchester health authority, ended on the 31st of March this year. Locally, all local authorities in the north-west, except Manchester, are in difficulty. Many have bid for contributions on our behalf, but"—
he says, and I know this to be true—
I understand they have now received a 20 per cent. cash cut for 1993–94, while Manchester itself has a cash standstill.
John Nicholson said that they seem unlikely to be able to implement the guidelines which insisted on the same level of funding being provided next year to the voluntary sector. I am sure that that does not apply only to the George House Trust in my constituency. It has implications for all voluntary organisations and for funding which had been ring-fenced.
Those who deal with AIDS and HIV were at least able to believe that funds were specially allocated to them and they did not have to scrape around for money. Unfortunately, as is the case with other units—for example, those dealing with alcohol abuse—they now find that ring fencing no longer exists and that they have to compete with other demands.
I am not an alarmist; I want more preventive work to be undertaken. I believe that we can deal with AIDS and HIV if we are prepared to put ourselves out, make the resources available and acknowledge what has to be done.
It is sad that the necessary time is not allocated to debate such matters in the House. A report as important as the Day report should be discussed in detail. I want to allow the Minister plenty of time to comment, but I make a few observations on the report's summary. The working party concluded:
after adjustment for under-reporting, there will be between 2,015 and 2,720 new AIDS cases in England and Wales in 1995, and between 1,945 and 3,215 new AIDS cases in 1997.
It also gives the 1995 and 1997 planning projections for new AIDS cases among the main exposure categories. It continues:
It is estimated that there were approximately 23,400 HIV infected individuals in England and Wales at the end of 1996 … The expected levelling off in the overall incidence of AIDS in 1996 and 1997 masks sharp underlying differences in the trends between the exposure categories. Whereas AIDS incidence in homosexual males may peak in 1993 and 1994, the incidence in those exposed heterosexually is expected to increase steadily.
I stress strongly that it is wrong for the Government, intentionally or otherwise, to lull people into a false sense of security. The ignorance about AIDS among the young is appalling. The young always believe that they are immune from the dangers about which their parents warn them. Whether we like it or not, young people are having sex much earlier than we did and they are not as careful as many of us believe that they should be.
In "The Health of the Nation", the Government rightly said that they wanted to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies, but the number is indicative of the fact that

many young people do not take precautions when having sex. In some cases, their activities can result in sex, but, sadly, they can also result in HIV and AIDS.
When considering the statistics, it is important that we do not make moral judgments. Society may not be as we would wish it to be and children and young people may not behave as we behaved or as we would wish them to behave. There are various role models which we may wish young people did not have. Nevertheless, young people have sex earlier and take risks in doing so. That is why I was so angry on Monday when, because of the guillotine, the Government accepted a Lords amendment without debate in this House.
Some time ago I wrote to the Minister and I was pleased that he expressed his belief that sex education and related matters should be dealt with in schools. However, we have undermined much of the work that could have been done; we must reach young people.
I have gone into the matter as far as I can and I could talk for an hour if I dealt with all the material that I have. I do not suggest an epidemic—I am not an alarmist—but the figures that I have seen suggest to me that unless precautions are taken we shall land in great difficulty.
Before I finish, I shall raise one other matter. The Government have talked about reducing teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and the instance of drug misuse over the next few years. We all hope that that happens, but we cannot allow ourselves, or other people, to get the impression that because the incidence has not been as bad as some people predicted, we can now relax and treat AIDS and HIV in the same way as we treat other diseases.
The age at which people are dying of AIDS shows that they are getting the disease very young. That is one of the most worrying aspects, whether those involved are boys or girls. As I have already said, we know that youth does not always listen and does not always want to be counselled. If one talks to young people, one finds that their ignorance about the transmission of AIDS is frightening, because they have not had the opportunity to be educated about it I understand how many parents feel; they want the right to prevent their children from being, as it were, contaminated with that knowledge; they want the right to remove their children from the education. But the children, too, have rights to know the world in which they are growing up —a world that many of us, because of our age, will never enter.
The Government must take the subject seriously and reconsider ring fencing and other factors. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and one or two other hon. Members here, I am a member of the all-party group on AIDS. We receive much information and guidance and we are not scaremongering, but we are realists and we are anxious to ensure that the Government take the matter seriously. If the Government give the impression that things are getting better, the message will not get through to many people, especially the young, who still think that those of us who are trying to warn them are scaremongering. They do not think that anything will happen to them. Sadly, as we know, AIDS does happen to a minority of them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I thank the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for introducing a debate on this alarming and sad subject.
First, I shall look back a few years to remind her that, when we were first confronted with HIV in this country, in the early 1980s, we acted much more speedily than did some other countries. We were in the forefront of developments such as needle exchange, which have shown enormous benefits in reducing the spread of the disease among drug users, and we can be justifiably proud of that.
We embarked on what was then considered an advanced and controversial education campaign. Despite considerable criticism, to which the hon. Lady referred, we targeted the young heterosexual population, because we knew of the dangers of the spread of the disease. It may not be so apparent here as in some parts of the world, but it is here, and it is a growing danger.
We embarked on a considerable funding programme. The hon. Lady referred to money, so may I remind the House of the mainstream funds that have gone to health authorities for the treatment of HIV and AIDS in the past few years. The sum has grown from £25 million in 1987 —the first recorded figure that I have—to £181 million last year and £214 million in the current year. Those are very considerable funds when we consider that they form part of a hospital and community budget of £20,000 million. In terms of the public education campaign, to date we have spent £85 million. I doubt whether the Government have run a bigger public health campaign than that.
I am aware of the hon. Lady's concerns about more than one of the voluntary organisations which have been told that they will have their grants cut progressively in the years to come.
Section 64 funding in the current year is £1·92 million. That must be taken in the context of a section 64 budget of £17 million, so that funding represents about 10 per cent. of the entire voluntary organisation budget which is devoted to AIDs-related charities. The hon. Lady knows that we have to turn down requests for funding from hundreds of organisations concerned with mental health, cancer and many other areas. Therefore, the funding for AIDs-related organisations is very considerable. Those organisations include AI Ds and Housing Project, ACET, Barnardo's, Black HIV-AIDs Network, Blackliners, Body Positive and Landmark.
I appreciate that we have said that some of the largest single grants will be cut. However, we are talking about levels of central Government funding for those organisations which some would say were out of proportion to other Government funding for voluntary organisations. However, that was a response in the early days to a new threat when it was very difficult to fund those organisations.
Some of those organisations are now quite mature. As I have said, there are many demands for funding for voluntary organisations and we have reached the conclusion that we have. However, that does not represent a diminution of our commitment to AIDs, and I hope that the figures that I have given will demonstrate that.
The hon. Lady referred to the George House Trust. If I may, I will write to her about that as the matter is of considerable concern to her and my area of the country.

She also mentioned the figures for the Day report. Perhaps I can refer to some of our latest information on the basis of which we work.
It is reassuring that the projected figures for new AIDs cases have been borne out by events. Without being complacent, we have reason to have some confidence in the methods that we have used over the past few years to prevent the further spread of that dreadful disease.
The figures that we are working on are the fruit of 18 months' work by the expert group which has benefited from increasing amounts of information from surveillance networks. In particular, we were able to use data from the Government's programme of anonymous HIV surveys. The estimate on which we are now working is that there were between 19,628 and 28,400 HIV-infected adults in England and Wales at the end of 1991.
It has been suggested, and the hon. Lady referred to this, that that is good news and it has been used as an argument for reducing the commitment to AIDS. That is not necessarily our view. The figures are lower than might have been suggested at an earlier stage and we are clearly glad that we have evidence of the effects of behaviour change among homosexual men and drug misusers.
However, it must be emphasised that those figures still indicate a large reservoir of people who are not only likely to develop AIDS themselves, but may infect others. They also predict the number of people who are likely to require care. It must be remembered that nearly all of them are likely to be already infected with HIV. We were correct regarding the heterosexual spread of HIV as a real and growing threat and we proceed on that basis, even though, at present, the majority of cases of HIV infection are still transmitted through homosexual intercourse.
The hon. Lady mentioned the sexual behaviour of young people. I agree with her. We must accept that there is increased sexual activity at a much younger age than in recent years. We might regret that, but we must accept that it exists and that it poses a threat to health and to the spread of HIV.
We are committed to the provision of family planning advice and contraceptive services to what some people regard as very young teenagers whom we know to be sexually active. She referred to "The Health of the Nation". It contains one of the key targets for the reduction of under-16 pregnancies. That means some fairly controversial forays into family planning advice and contraceptive services for under-16s, despite all the taboos and legal uncertainties that surround it.
It is difficult, but we support and pay great tribute to pioneering organisations such as the Brooke advisory centre, whose priority it is to reach young people. I have opened innovative initiatives such as the youth advice shop in Accrington, of which the hon. Lady might be aware. It is run by Lancashire county council and others and it contains a family planning component. We must recognise that, in order to reach young people and try to reduce the dangers to them, we need to be rather subtle and make help accessible.
I am aware also of the controversy surrounding changes to the Education Bill, but I remind the hon. Lady and all those who predict dire consequences that one of the main changes is that it makes sex education compulsory for all schools. It is not open to a board of governors to say, "We are not going to offer sex education." That is very explicit for the first time. The hon. Lady regrets that parents will have the option to withdraw children. I predict


that very small numbers will be involved. We look to the Department for Education to give clear guidance on what is expected in terms of sex education programmes. There is no doubt that, if we do not somehow reach children —it is a truism that parents in this country are not particularly good at it—they will not get that basic education. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that matter.
I emphasise the theme of my remarks. There is no change of attitude. We recognise that the heterosexual

population, as well as the traditional groups, are vulnerable to HIV. We will continue to target them. We will continue to spend large sums on them. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this important topic.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock